November 1, 2019 • 38 mins
Get an overview of the entire grant cycle from Acting Deputy Director of Extramural Activities, Dr. Dave Owens, and Program Directors Drs. Vicky Whittemore and Ned Talley.
Building Up the Nerve is a podcast from the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke for neuroscience trainees that takes you through the life cycle of a grant from idea to award at NINDS with the people who make it happen. We know that applying for NIH funding can be daunting, but we’re here to help—it’s our job!
Related Resources:
https://reporter.nih.gov/matchmaker
This episode has been edited since its original publication.
Transcript: http://ninds.buzzsprout.com/558574/1949736-episode-2-the-grant-cycle
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Lauren (00:02):
Welcome to the National Institute of Neurological Disorders
and Stroke's Building Up the Nerve,a podcast for neuroscience trainees
that takes you through the life cycleof a grant from idea to award at NINDS
with the people who make it happen.
We know that applying for NIH fundingcan be daunting, but we're here to help.
It's our job.
Marguerite Matthews (00:22):
Hello, I'm Marguerite Matthews, a health
program specialist at NINDS.
Laure (00:26):
And I'm Lauren Ullrich, a scientific program manager at NINDS, and
we're the hosts of Building Up the Nerve.
Last episode, we discussedthe mission of NINDS and its
relationship to NIH as a whole.
Marguerite Matthew (00:37):
This episode we're going to present a big picture
overview of the NIH grant cycle,which will be the framework for
subsequent episodes of the season.
As the season continues, we will doa deeper dive into each stage of the
grant cycle with the staff here atNINDS who help keep the process moving.
As always, I want to state thedisclaimer that things covered on this
podcast may only be relevant to NINDS.
(01:00):
So if you're applying to a different NIHinstitute or center, be sure to check with
them about their policies and procedures.
Lauren Ullri (01:13):
Joining us are Dr.
Dave Owens, acting deputy director ofthe Division of Extramural Activities,
Dr. Vicky Whittemore, a programdirector in the channels, synapses and
circuits cluster, and Dr. Ned Tally,a program director in the channels,
synapses, and circuits cluster as well.
Dave Owens (01:28):
Okay.
So I would put it this way, that thetopic we're going to discuss today,
the grant cycle, essentially what Ido here is oversee that operation.
The division of extramuralactivities is kind of the umbrella
organization that oversees that.
Now what I did before was actually Iwas a program director here at NINDS.
(01:50):
So I was colleagues of Ned and Vicky.
So I did those activitieswhich they will cover.
What else did you want to know?
Lauren Ullrich (01:58):
How long have you worked here?
Da (01:59):
Oh, um, I would say probably 15 years now, 10 years as a PD and
program director and, uh, five years.
Then in the deputy position.
Lauren Ullrich (02:10):
And a hobby?
Dave Owens (02:11):
Um, bowling.
Mar (02:15):
Something I cannot do well.
Laur (02:18):
And what about you, Vicky?
Vicky Whittemore (02:20):
So I'm a program director and I oversee
grants primarily on epilepsy.
And so within that the focus is typicallyor primarily on the genetic epilepsies, so
basic translational and clinical researchand sudden unexpected death in epilepsy.
And then another hat I wear isas a program director for grants
(02:42):
on chronic fatigue syndrome.
So I've been here a littlemore than eight years.
And prior to joining NINDS, I wasworking in the nonprofit sector
as the chief scientific officer atthe Tuberous Sclerosis Alliance and
Citizens United for Research Epilepsy.
Lauren Ullrich (03:00):
Hobby?
Vicky Whittemor (03:00):
I love reading, play the piano and spending
time with my, my puppy dog.
Dave Owens (03:05):
No bowling?
Vicky Whittemore (03:06):
No bowling.
Margurite M. (03:09):
And Ned?
Ned Talley (03:10):
Yeah.
So I'm Ned Tally.
I'm, I'm also program director,um, in the channels, synapses
and circuits cluster with Vicky.
Um, my primary job is I'm working on theBRAIN Initiative, which is, um, a large
program of multiple NIH institutes, um,aimed at developing new technologies to
(03:34):
understand how neural circuits function.
And I have a couple of different roles.
One is that I'm a program officer forgrants on optics and optogenetics, and I
am also co-chair of the BRAIN Initiativecoordinating team, which is responsible
for managing the BRAIN Initiative.
(03:55):
In terms of hobbies, I'd saymy main hobby is trying to keep
my kids out of trouble, um.
Marguerite Matthews (04:03):
Um, that sounds more like a job than a hobby.
Ned Talley (04:06):
Uh, different people have different passions.
Um, and no, we don't bowl.
Dave O (04:14):
Actually I don't either.
By the way.
Marguerite Matthews (04:19):
We've got some jokesters in NINDS.
Lauren Ullrich (04:27):
Okay.
So let's get started then.
Um, when we're talking grants, we havea predictable cycle that happens three
times a year, although it does overlap.
Um, so will one of you take us throughthe first step of that grant cycle?
Dav (04:46):
So, um, you know, we have a series of different training mechanisms
or, or programs and so maybe thefirst step for a young investigators
to look into those various programsto see what they're interested in.
Now, a good idea is they should alwayspursue what they are interested in as
opposed to what the NIH is asking for.
I think that's a, probablya higher pathway to success.
(05:08):
Um, nonetheless, they conceive of an idea.
If it's a, you know, a mentor typeprogram, they'd probably interact
with their principal investigator, thescientists that they are the mentee of.
Um, they should discuss aproposal, come up with a plan,
you write up the application.
It's a very specific and series ofinstructions of how you do that.
Um, and then you submit it.
Ned Talley (05:30):
Now, one thing just to jump in and, and um, make sure
that people understand is you wantto start by looking at the, uh,
instructions for the specific programannouncement that you're applying to.
So for different training mechanisms,typically the evaluation is about a lot
(05:51):
more than just the research project.
It's about your capabilities as anindividual, the mentoring environment, um,
and your relationship with your mentor.
Um, and so all of those need to becovered and emphasized and you don't
want to give anything short change.
Dave Owen (06:09):
That's a great point.
Vicky Whittemo (06:10):
I was just going to jump in and say, um, one of the
things that I advise people is tocontact a program director to talk
about their proposed application.
Um, we don't typically give adviceabout the kind of science or the science
you do, but give you advice as to howto best position your application,
(06:31):
things to make sure you include likethe training plan and different aspects
of the application that will, as Nedsaid, will be reviewed beyond just the
science that you're proposing to do.
Da (06:45):
I mean, I think a good point as I think a, there's some confusion
sometimes it is just a research proposallike Ned and Vicky, you're saying that's
actually, it's a training grant, theevidence of the training experience,
so what's going to be gained in thatsense, can be as important as the, you
know, the specific research proposed.
Lauren Ullrich (07:04):
So we often tell applicants to contact the program official
or the program directors as we callthem at NINDS to, you know, get advice.
But there's a lot of other thingsthat the program director is doing.
So will you take us through afew of the other responsibilities
that program director has?
Ned Talley (07:23):
Yeah.
So there are a number of different thingsthat we're focused on, on the programmatic
side and it, um, sort of comes downto different parts of the grant cycle.
You know, one of the things we do is wedo write specific program announcements.
If there are areas of emphasisthat we feel need to be bolstered.
(07:48):
Um, so for example, for the BRAINInitiative, we have a K 99 program that's
distinct from other programs at NIH.
And that was something that we, youknow, spent a good bit of time developing
in addition, um, after a grant is, um,reviewed, it's the program director who's
the main point of contact and advocatefor the research that's being proposed.
(08:15):
Um, and in some respects we are a brokerof information about your project and
your prospects, um, to the NIH, um, andto the rest of the NIH, you know, to
the rest of NINDS and we're the oneswho sort of translate what you're doing
(08:37):
into, um, the kinds of information thatare necessary for the funding decisions.
So a lot happens beyond justthe peer review and we're
responsible for a lot of it.
Marguerite Matthew (08:51):
How does one find who their official is and who to
talk to, especially when it comes toperhaps a certain scientific expertise?
Vicky Whittemore (09:01):
So, there are several ways.
You can ask your mentor who the programdirector is for their NIH funded grants,
um, and contact that program official.
You can also go on matchmakerand identify through matchmaker,
someone who is a program directorfor that area of research.
Um, there are, I thinkthere are other ways.
(09:23):
If you look in the funding opportunityannouncement itself, there will be
a contact for possibly the trainingoffice or particular program
directors who you can contact.
And if they're not the right person,they'll redirect you to the person
you should, you should be contacting.
Dave Owens (09:39):
Now that that would be all prior to submission.
Once you've actually submitted, youwill be assigned a program officer.
So, in the electronic researchadministrator, I believe
you have an account and um,
Lauren Ullrich (09:53):
ERA.
Dave Owens (09:54):
ERA.
You have an account, you would goin there, there will be a program
officer listed that would be,that is your program director.
Lauren Ullrich (10:01):
So then after you submit then the application
moves to assignment and review.
So, can one of you give usa brief overview of what
happens during that process?
N (10:12):
So when the application comes in, it goes to the center for scientific
review, which is a separate NIH entity.
They're responsible for making theassignments of the specific NIH Institute
and they do that based on the coverletter and on the content of the science.
And then also assigning it to areview panel and the center for
(10:37):
scientific review known as CSR, theyrun about 60% of the NIH reviews.
The remainder of the reviews areactually run by individual institutes
Dave Owen (10:48):
In that initial phase when you submit it, when it does go
to CSR for, well, it goes into a placecalled receipt and referral, so they
receive them and then refer them.
You can provide a cover letter, youcan actually make a recommendation of
where, what institute you would want tobe assigned to and what study section
you would want to be assigned to.
So you can go in to CSR websiteand go into individual institutes'
(11:10):
websites to see what these panels are.
Now in some cases there is no optionand I'm going to use an example of
what is called an RFA and if we releasean RFA, its a a one time request for
applications where they actually puta review panel together for that.
So there really is no option.
You would be reviewed in that panel.
Now for other programs, some of thetraining programs, there could be one
(11:35):
or more panels and if someone lookedat that and they said, you know,
based on the composition, I actuallythink this panel would be in the best
position to review my application.
You can make that requestin the cover letter.
It's a request, you know, it'snot necessarily a demand, but
I think they're actually veryresponsive to these requests, CSR.
Ned Talley (11:53):
So your grant gets assigned to a review panel.
Otherwise known as a study section andit gets read and critiqued by at least
three reviewers and they actually providewritten critiques based on what they read.
And then for approximately half ofthe applications that are deemed to be
(12:15):
in the top tier, um, the applicationsare actually discussed by the panel
and the scientific review officeris responsible for writing a summary
of paragraph of that discussion.
So regardless of how your grantscores, you're going to get these
written critiques and if your grantscores in the top half, you'll also
(12:36):
get a summary of the discussion.
Vicky Whittemore (12:39):
So the program director's role at that point is to
either attend in person or by phone andlisten to the review of your application.
And we try to do that as much aspossible because what that does
then is it really helps us to betterinform you about the written summary
statement that you will receive.
(13:01):
We can help you to identify theareas in the summary statement that
seemed to be the biggest stickingpoints or where there was discussion.
Um, one of the things we find with thesummary statements is that they're written
prior to review by the three reviewers.
And they sometimes do sometimes don't goback and make revisions to the summary
(13:21):
statements even though they're asked todo that after review, if they have changed
their mind or want to make changes.
But listening for us to listen to thereview, it really helps us to better give
you better advice if you're going to needto revise and resubmit your application.
Ned T (13:38):
And after the discussion, the panel actually votes on the score.
And then based on the historicalscoring of that panel, your grant will
receive a percentile, um, indicatinghow it falls relative to other grants
that have been reviewed by that panel.
And then the Institute has policiesbased on percentile scoring about
(14:04):
where the funding lines are drawn.
A lot of times it's determined bythe budget and typically what happens
is the Institute will have a rangewhere everything gets funded and then
arrange where nothing gets funded.
And then a range where, youknow, it requires further
assessment by program staff.
(14:25):
And that's um, often where people fall.
And, um, so it's a good idea toum, understand where your score
is and what kinds of things, um,NIH might need to know from you
to help in making this decision.
Marguerite Matthews (14:43):
So after a grant has been submitted and
reviewed, it will go to pre councilprogram review and recommendation.
I don't think any of our listenersknow what that actually means.
Can one of you explain that process to us?
Vicky Whitt (14:57):
As Ned pointed out, typically for the training grounds,
there's a zone of grants that scored wellthat are definitely going to be funded.
There is a zone of grants that scored notso well but will definitely not be funded.
And the important zone is the zonein the middle, which are the grants
that require additional discussion.
(15:20):
And quite often, program directors willreach out to the grantees whose grants
fall into that zone and request additionalinformation from you, ask you to respond
to some of the concerns or weaknessesthat were raised in the summary statement
and give you the opportunity to respondand provide that additional information
(15:41):
so that then, at the pre-councilmeeting, when your grant comes up for
review, your program director can thenbetter represent your grant advocate
on behalf of you regarding funding orwhether the Institute should consider
funding or not funding your application.
Lauren Ul (15:59):
We mentioned payline, and in terms of NINDS, we're quite
largely payline driven for R01s, but alot of training and career mechanisms
are not percentile because they'reonly reviewed in one study section.
So can you go into how programdirectors make the decision--just
(16:20):
based on the impact score, what kindsof information they take into account?
Ned Talley (16:25):
You know, often, um, the study section, you know, they,
they have one shot at the review,they don't have all the information
and, you know, afterwards there maybe issues that aren't quite clear.
And if we get more information fromthe applicant, um, and resolve some of
the questions that the peer reviewersweren't able to resolve that can,
(16:46):
you know, clarify things and move theapplication into category, that's, um,
you know, we're funding is more likely.
I think that, uh, those arereally important considerations.
You know, the fact that it's, it's sortof a two step process, the first the
peer review and then we have a chanceto sort of assess things in more detail.
Vicky Whittemore (17:07):
And I would add to that that often how well
you respond to the request forinformation is critically important.
So take that seriously ifyou're asked for a response.
And for additional information becausewe as program directors are really
interested in having that informationto clarify issues raised in review.
Ne (17:26):
And as long as we're talking about training mechanisms, I think it's
really important for people to understand.
I said this before, but I think it's worthrepeating that we're often looking at a
lot more than just the research project.
It's, um, you know, the overall trainingenvironment and the mentoring plan.
And often I find that this isan opportunity for applicants
(17:46):
to actually improve the overallmentoring plan that they're getting
because is part of the application.
You're asked to describe theenvironment and sometimes it's really
useful to get sort of a, you know,a mentoring committee for example,
or get some way of incorporatingfeedback beyond just your advisor.
(18:07):
Um, and, and this kind of grantapplication and provides you an
opportunity to actually have thatdiscussion and, and make the kinds
of requests that could actuallymake a big impact on your career.
Marguerite Matthews (18:20):
All right.
So after pre council, theapplications will go to council.
Who are on the council?
Dave Owe (18:25):
Um, so every Institute at the NIH has what is called and
you know, and advisory council,these are chartered bodies that
are actually, it's very official,known as a FACA committee and it's
actually, there's a law that covers it.
So we can't actually fundanything unless an advisory, our
advisory council approves it.
Um, what they provide is what'sknown as the second level of review.
(18:48):
They do not re-review the application,but they kind of look at the process and
what we do is make a proposal to them.
We make a funding plan overall, inwhich we cover all the grants we
wanted to fund for a council round.
We meet, we have an open session wherewe may discuss policy issues or whatnot,
but then we have a closed sessionwhere they will review our funding plan
(19:09):
and then they can approve it or not.
Now the director of the institute isactually the final pathway of approval.
The director is the one who actuallyapproves funding council is the
council is advisory to the director.
Now the only, the, the one thingabout council, I would say they do
have the ability, if they actuallyvoted that we shouldn't fund
(19:31):
something, we are bound by that.
But usually they just simply makerecommendations to the director of the
institute that the director will takethat under consideration, and then the
final funding plan is approved by them.
Ned Talley (19:43):
Yeah.
And the, um, you know, just like thecomposition of the NIH study sections,
the composition of the Institutecouncils are available on the web.
And so for NINDS, if you just Googleand NINDS council, it'll come up and,
and you can see who the roster is.
It's typically eminent scientistsalong with people from industry
(20:05):
and from advocacy organizations.
U m, focused on variousneurological diseases.
Dave Ow (20:11):
And let me add to that.
So when I brought up it's aFACA committee, there actually
is a required composition thatcouncil has to be a part of.
So for example, we have to have a thirdof them being, um, basic, it's not basic
researchers but research scientists andlike a third half to be public members.
So they can be from advocacy, theycan be from the professions of law,
(20:33):
uh, other professions, but it's veryprescribed what the council has to be.
And in fact, the Department of Healthand Human Services have to approve our
council rosters as we call them or slates.
Lauren Ul (20:46):
And the one exception to council is fellowships, right?
Those do not go to council.
They do not.
The counsel--they do not go tothe meeting, but council is made
aware of these, the funding plans.
Right.
Ned (20:59):
And in practice, you know, um, I think the, the funding process
for fellowships is not a lot differentfrom the research project grants.
Um, you know, legally they don't go,they don't actually get reviewed by
council, but, um, otherwise all ofthe, you know, all of the preparation
that we do and the recommendationsthat we make to the institute director,
(21:23):
um, wind up being pretty similar.
Marguerit (21:25):
So what happens if an application is not approved for funding?
Can they resubmit or what should happen?
Ned Talley (21:33):
Well, first you need to recognize that you're
in really good company.
[laughter] So, you know,typically it's around 20% of
applications that get funded.
And you're talking about 20%; the other80% are from people who are outstanding.
So it's not a situation where a rejectionin this case doesn't mean that your
(21:57):
career is off to the wrong track.
All it means is you didn'thit the goal of this time.
I think you really need tounderstand that, um, that grant
writing is just part of the process.
Um, you need to step back and, andchill out and say, you know, what,
what sorts of things can I do to, tohit it into the goal of the next time.
(22:20):
I think that's where a program staffare here to help you understand
and interpret the feedback thatyou get from the critiques.
And it's really critical and it'sreally valuable to talk to program
directors at that point in the process.
Vicky Whitte (22:37):
And whether or not you can resubmit really depends on where
you're at in your stage of your career.
And so it's important to lookat the funding announcements.
So for example, the NINDS F32,you can submit prior to joining
a lab or during the first year.
But if you are now beyond that point, youwon't be able to resubmit that grant if
(23:00):
it's not funded the first time around.
So it's really important to understandthose eligibility criteria as well.
Dave (23:08):
But you would be willing, you'd be, um, able to probably submit
to a different type of program.
But I mean, I would add also thenthat in terms of the critiques
or the summary statement as it'scalled, take that very seriously.
So it's, it's usually notcompletely idiosyncratic.
So if there were issues brought upthere and even if you change the
program and you're applying to adifferent type of training grant,
(23:31):
many of those things would stay.
So you know, you don't--just becauseit's a new program and maybe even a
new study section, some of the issues,the concerns tend to be very universal.
So you want to take the summarystatement and the critiques that
are ther very seriously, youwant to address those issues.
I mean that's the first step.
If, if I was not funded I would, youknow, read that very, very carefully.
Maybe even have a discussion withfirst year, your mentor, then
(23:55):
the NIH staff and, and you know,formulate a plan of what you would do.
Cause sometimes there's things thatyou would need to do some major
changes and some are not so much, sayit's a collection of smaller issues.
So that's the key step is to kind ofreassess and think about the path forward.
And I would agree with Ned in thesense that you know, you're in good
company when you don't get funded.
(24:15):
But I think our analysis we've doneover many types of programs, if you
stay with it, there's a very goodlikelihood that you will succeed.
Lauren (24:23):
That's a great message.
Dave Owens (24:24):
Yeah.
Lauren Ullrich (24:25):
So let's say you do succeed, you get, you're getting
your funding, um, what happens duringthe issuance of the grant award?
Vicky Whittemore (24:34):
So the first thing is that you will be asked for
additional information, what's calledJIT or just in time information.
And typically what that is, is you'reasked for to, to report if you have
any other support, meaning are yougetting funding support from any
other organization such that therewould be overlap with the NIH funding
(24:57):
as well as, um, if you have, you'reusing animal studies, do you have the
appropriate IACUC approvals to do thosestudies, or for clinical studies, do
you have the appropriate IRB approvals?
So all of those kinds of things, ifthey're not, haven't been provided in
the application, you'll have to submitafter the grant has been, it's been
(25:19):
determined that the grant will be funded.
Once the award's issued, then you'llreceive a notice of award that will
indicate the start date in the terms ofof your application or of your grant.
And it's important to read that carefullybecause some mechanisms have specific
terms and things that you need to beaware of as you carry out your research.
(25:45):
There may be specific budget restrictions,so again, for example, if you are doing
a clinical study, they may decide toissue the notice of award prior to you
having IRB approval, but there willthen be a restriction that you're not
allowed to do any human subjects studiesuntil you receive that IRB approval.
Marguerite Matthews (26:04):
And what NINDS staff person should they be
talking to about the actual award?
Dav (26:10):
The program officer is one.
Now there's actually a branch in NINDSand every NIH Institute that actually
do the physical issuing of the awards.
So that's the grants management branch.
And so there'll be also in addition to theprogram director, there'll be the grants
management specialist who's assigned to aapplication and they will know about some
(26:31):
of the administrative requirements thatare necessary to move the reward forward.
Frankly, the program officerknows many of those as well.
So it's, you know, it's acollaboration to get those out.
So the individual couldspeak to either one of them.
Ned (26:43):
And, um, typically the way it works is that the grants specialist
actually will be corresponding withthe organizational signing official in
the grants office at your institution.
So it turns out that, you know,the grants are submitted by the
institution and, um, so a lot ofthat correspondence, uh, regarding
(27:04):
official award information actuallyhas to go through your grants office.
So, you know, I think that it'ssomething where you're going to
want to, want to make sure thatthe appropriate individuals are
contacted, um, within your institution.
But typically that's not much of aproblem because you know, the staff
here actually already know who theappropriate, um, individuals are.
Lauren Ullrich (27:26):
So taking a little bit of a step back.
So NINDS funds thousands of grantsevery year, how do we keep track of
what any individual person is doingwith the money that we give them,
but also overall in terms of thinkingbig picture, what we're funding?
Dave Owe (27:47):
The federal government works on a yearly budget, so we're
given a budget per year, yet wemake awards over multiple years.
Let's just use a five as an example.
A grant that is issued for five yearsfrom our one year budget, it moves into a
phase called a non competitive phase, soyou don't have to be reviewed again, you
are reviewed by your program officer forprogress, but you know, once a year you
(28:08):
submit what is called a progress report.
And so that's the way for the NINDSand the program officers to monitor the
progress of the individual projects.
Now there's some exceptions such as, um,there's a thing called multi-year funding.
We would actually pay the wholegrant up front, but the individual
is still required to submitthose yearly progress reports.
(28:29):
Once again, it's a way to ensure,you know, good stewardship of the
taxpayers' dollars; to make sure that theprogress in the project is going well.
Now, the bigger question ofall the grants we fund yet, we,
there are automated systems.
We do a great deal of analysisto keep track of everything.
Um, I don't think I couldgo into all the details.
Lauren Ullrich (28:52):
That'll be the last episode of the podcast.
Da (28:54):
It's, it's a big enterprise, but we do monitor literally everything.
N (28:58):
And it's important for people to understand
um, it's a grant, it's not a contract.
Um, and what you're expected to dois to be working on that project in
terms of the goals that are written.
If you see that your project isgoing in a different direction and
(29:21):
the goals are changing, typicallythat's not a big deal at all.
However, you know, it'sworthwhile for you to contact,
you know, the program director.
If you think that, you know, it'sa really significant change just
to make sure they're in the loop.
Events for training that would really,um, be really important to contact.
(29:44):
The, the program director would be,say for example, a change, a mentor.
I think a you, you should consider NIHas a resource in the sense of getting,
you know, feedback on changes, butalso just to make sure that, um, you
know, everything is, is interpretedthe way that you're interpreting it.
Vicky Whit (30:02):
And I would add just one more thing, that is that things
happen and sometimes the progressyou had hoped to make over the course
of the year just doesn't happen.
So for example, I know I have agrantee whose animal facility had to
be closed down because of an infectionthat swept through the whole thing in
this--and so the grantee couldn't dotheir research because they couldn't,
(30:26):
didn't have access to their animals.
So we understand whenthings like that happen.
And so the caution or words ofadvice is don't panic, but tell us
what's happening and we understandwhen, when things like that happen.
Lauren Ullrich (30:41):
Right.
And tell us early.
Vicky Whittemore (30:43):
yes.
Laur (30:45):
Cause we can do a lot more to help you the sooner we know, rather
than trying to fix things after the fact.
Dave Owens (30:50):
And let me add onto one thing Ned said.
So there is actually, youknow, you, you have submitted a
proposal, it's received funding.
In that proposal you would lay it out,the research you're gonna conduct, there
is flexibility for change in there.
There is a point where theoreticallyit goes beyond the scope.
Now this is a somewhat of atechnical term to change scope.
(31:12):
You actually have to requestprior approval from the NIH.
And this isn't, you know, there's caseswhere, Oh I was studying molecule X
in axon guidance and I've got data.
Now it looks like a moleculeY is more important.
That is within scope.
Out of scope is if I'm just going touse a radical example, it's an animal
study and now you want to do humansubjects research, that would be a
(31:35):
major change in scope and you wouldhave to get our approval to do it
Lauren Ullrich (31:39):
right.
And if you're not sure, you can justreach out to the program officer--
Dave Owens (31:41):
Absolutely.
Lauren Ullrich (31:42):
--and they'll let you know.
Marguerite Matthews (31:44):
So for trainees, when should they start
thinking about a new grant cycle?
So they have an award.
When should they start thinkingabout the next award year?
Ned Talley (31:54):
A year in advance.
It takes a year to from submissionto award when you factor in, you
know, the writing of the grantand um, so you really need to sort
of plan things out in advance.
Vicky Whittemor (32:08):
I think it also depends on your individual situation.
What I'm seeing quite often as someonewho has say an F32 fellowship, there
may be a gap between when that grantends and their next grant starts
and their mentor picks them up onfunding that they have in the lab.
But again, that's a very individualthing and, and you really need to
(32:29):
be thinking ahead in terms of howwill your research be supported
if you have a gap in your funding.
Dave Owens (32:37):
For a trainee, it's probably the ideal.
You should always bethinking of the next grant.
I mean, if you're going to become afederally sponsored researcher at each
stage, you know there's a process and you,you know, if you have an F32 which is a
postdoctoral fellowship and you're on thejob market looking for faculty positions,
you should actually be thinking about whatyou would write in your first research
(32:58):
grant as an independent investigator.
I don't think it's ever toosoon to think about that.
Um, you know, you don't have to actuallyinitiate those things, but it's worthwhile
to learn all the different steps in,in having a successful research career.
And this is where, you know, talkingto your NIH program officers, people
who work at NIH can be quite helpful.
I mean, they can tell you alltheir experiences and, and we
(33:20):
are here to answer questions.
That's a big part of our joband we actually like to do it.
So, you know, always reach out to us.
Lauren U (33:27):
So to wrap up, I think a lot of trainees think of NIH as a
monolith and we were hoping throughthis podcast to talk a little bit more
about the idiosyncrasies of NINDS.
so is there anything in particularthat grantees and trainees should know
(33:47):
about the ways in which NINDS mightbe different than other institutes?
Vicky Whit (33:53):
One thing that I can think of right away is that in NINDS, the
program director will likely be a personthat is sort of that topic area expert.
So for example, I oversee thetraining awards in epilepsy in, I
know talking to some of my colleaguesin other institutes, there will be
(34:14):
one person or a couple of people thatwill oversee all training grants.
So that person may or may not haveexpertise in their actual area of
research, even though it may bewithin the mission of that Institute.
So I think that's one big differencebetween NINDS and some of the
other institutes here at NIH.
Lauren Ullrich (34:33):
Right.
So with a training award, you cancontact the training office and then we
can help shepherd you through the sortof career development aspects and the
more general aspects of the application.
But then for any scientific questions,we'll direct you to the program
officer that holds that scientificportfolio because we know that
they're the best ones to speak to thestate of the science in that area.
(34:54):
So it really is a partnership betweenour offices and the scientific program
directors, which you're right, itis different at other institutes.
Ned (35:04):
And I think it's important, you know, this is sort of implicit in some
of the things we've been talking about.
That the important factor here isthat each Institute has its own
mission and its own budget andit's own mandate from Congress.
And so every Institute, their prioritiesare slightly different and their
(35:25):
processes are slightly different.
And um, because of that, you wantto reach out to the appropriate NIH
Institute for your research topic.
And often there may be more than onepotential Institute and it would be
a good idea for you to reach out toeach one of them because it's possible
that you know, one Institute actuallymight put a much higher priority on
(35:49):
what you're thinking of studying.
Marguerit (35:56):
All right, well thank you all for sharing your wisdom today.
Um, will each of you please give onelast piece of advice for our trainees?
We'll start with you, Dave.
Dave (36:04):
As I said, never give up.
[laughter].
We're here to help and asDave said, we like to do it.
So contact us.
Ned T (36:16):
And I would say people go into research, um, because they love
it and I think that you want to makesure that that's part of the balance.
Um, so that, you know, throughthick and thin you know that this
is something you really want to do.
Um, and I think that if you'vegot that in you, then, um, you're
(36:38):
gonna wind up being successful.
Mar (36:40):
Lauren, what's your advice?
Lauren Ullr (36:42):
I think just really thinking about how long the process takes.
We referenced this earlier, so partof it is writing the application,
which always seems to take at leasttwice as long as you think it will.
But then we just talked about all thedifferent steps that have to happen
between when you hit submit and whenthat actual award goes out the door.
And you're lucky if it's six months.
(37:02):
I think the average fromsubmission to award is nine months.
That's a long time.
So build that into your timelineand be thinking about that, um, when
you're doing your five year plan.
Marguerite?
Marguerite Matthews (37:16):
I would say keep listening to the podcast so
you can learn a lot more abouteach stage of the grant cycle.
Lauren Ullrich (37:25):
That's all that we have time for today on"Building
Up The Nerve, so thank you somuch to our guests this week.
And also thank you to programdirector, Dr. Bob Riddle for
our theme song and music.
See you next time when we take youthrough initiating your research idea.
You can find past episodes of thispodcast and many more grant application
resources on the web at NINDS.nih.gov.
Marguerite M (37:48):
Email us questions at nindsnervepod@nih.gov and be sure
to subscribe to the podcast on ApplePodcasts or your favorite podcast
app so you won't miss an episode.
See you next time.
Welcome to the National Institute of Neurological Disorders
and Stroke's Building Up the Nerve,a podcast for neuroscience trainees
that takes you through the life cycleof a grant from idea to award at NINDS
with the people who make it happen.
We know that applying for NIH fundingcan be daunting, but we're here to help.
It's our job.
Marguerite Matthews (00:22):
Hello, I'm Marguerite Matthews, a health
program specialist at NINDS.
Laure (00:26):
And I'm Lauren Ullrich, a scientific program manager at NINDS, and
we're the hosts of Building Up the Nerve.
Last episode, we discussedthe mission of NINDS and its
relationship to NIH as a whole.
Marguerite Matthew (00:37):
This episode we're going to present a big picture
overview of the NIH grant cycle,which will be the framework for
subsequent episodes of the season.
As the season continues, we will doa deeper dive into each stage of the
grant cycle with the staff here atNINDS who help keep the process moving.
As always, I want to state thedisclaimer that things covered on this
podcast may only be relevant to NINDS.
(01:00):
So if you're applying to a different NIHinstitute or center, be sure to check with
them about their policies and procedures.
Lauren Ullri (01:13):
Joining us are Dr.
Dave Owens, acting deputy director ofthe Division of Extramural Activities,
Dr. Vicky Whittemore, a programdirector in the channels, synapses and
circuits cluster, and Dr. Ned Tally,a program director in the channels,
synapses, and circuits cluster as well.
Dave Owens (01:28):
Okay.
So I would put it this way, that thetopic we're going to discuss today,
the grant cycle, essentially what Ido here is oversee that operation.
The division of extramuralactivities is kind of the umbrella
organization that oversees that.
Now what I did before was actually Iwas a program director here at NINDS.
(01:50):
So I was colleagues of Ned and Vicky.
So I did those activitieswhich they will cover.
What else did you want to know?
Lauren Ullrich (01:58):
How long have you worked here?
Da (01:59):
Oh, um, I would say probably 15 years now, 10 years as a PD and
program director and, uh, five years.
Then in the deputy position.
Lauren Ullrich (02:10):
And a hobby?
Dave Owens (02:11):
Um, bowling.
Mar (02:15):
Something I cannot do well.
Laur (02:18):
And what about you, Vicky?
Vicky Whittemore (02:20):
So I'm a program director and I oversee
grants primarily on epilepsy.
And so within that the focus is typicallyor primarily on the genetic epilepsies, so
basic translational and clinical researchand sudden unexpected death in epilepsy.
And then another hat I wear isas a program director for grants
(02:42):
on chronic fatigue syndrome.
So I've been here a littlemore than eight years.
And prior to joining NINDS, I wasworking in the nonprofit sector
as the chief scientific officer atthe Tuberous Sclerosis Alliance and
Citizens United for Research Epilepsy.
Lauren Ullrich (03:00):
Hobby?
Vicky Whittemor (03:00):
I love reading, play the piano and spending
time with my, my puppy dog.
Dave Owens (03:05):
No bowling?
Vicky Whittemore (03:06):
No bowling.
Margurite M. (03:09):
And Ned?
Ned Talley (03:10):
Yeah.
So I'm Ned Tally.
I'm, I'm also program director,um, in the channels, synapses
and circuits cluster with Vicky.
Um, my primary job is I'm working on theBRAIN Initiative, which is, um, a large
program of multiple NIH institutes, um,aimed at developing new technologies to
(03:34):
understand how neural circuits function.
And I have a couple of different roles.
One is that I'm a program officer forgrants on optics and optogenetics, and I
am also co-chair of the BRAIN Initiativecoordinating team, which is responsible
for managing the BRAIN Initiative.
(03:55):
In terms of hobbies, I'd saymy main hobby is trying to keep
my kids out of trouble, um.
Marguerite Matthews (04:03):
Um, that sounds more like a job than a hobby.
Ned Talley (04:06):
Uh, different people have different passions.
Um, and no, we don't bowl.
Dave O (04:14):
Actually I don't either.
By the way.
Marguerite Matthews (04:19):
We've got some jokesters in NINDS.
Lauren Ullrich (04:27):
Okay.
So let's get started then.
Um, when we're talking grants, we havea predictable cycle that happens three
times a year, although it does overlap.
Um, so will one of you take us throughthe first step of that grant cycle?
Dav (04:46):
So, um, you know, we have a series of different training mechanisms
or, or programs and so maybe thefirst step for a young investigators
to look into those various programsto see what they're interested in.
Now, a good idea is they should alwayspursue what they are interested in as
opposed to what the NIH is asking for.
I think that's a, probablya higher pathway to success.
(05:08):
Um, nonetheless, they conceive of an idea.
If it's a, you know, a mentor typeprogram, they'd probably interact
with their principal investigator, thescientists that they are the mentee of.
Um, they should discuss aproposal, come up with a plan,
you write up the application.
It's a very specific and series ofinstructions of how you do that.
Um, and then you submit it.
Ned Talley (05:30):
Now, one thing just to jump in and, and um, make sure
that people understand is you wantto start by looking at the, uh,
instructions for the specific programannouncement that you're applying to.
So for different training mechanisms,typically the evaluation is about a lot
(05:51):
more than just the research project.
It's about your capabilities as anindividual, the mentoring environment, um,
and your relationship with your mentor.
Um, and so all of those need to becovered and emphasized and you don't
want to give anything short change.
Dave Owen (06:09):
That's a great point.
Vicky Whittemo (06:10):
I was just going to jump in and say, um, one of the
things that I advise people is tocontact a program director to talk
about their proposed application.
Um, we don't typically give adviceabout the kind of science or the science
you do, but give you advice as to howto best position your application,
(06:31):
things to make sure you include likethe training plan and different aspects
of the application that will, as Nedsaid, will be reviewed beyond just the
science that you're proposing to do.
Da (06:45):
I mean, I think a good point as I think a, there's some confusion
sometimes it is just a research proposallike Ned and Vicky, you're saying that's
actually, it's a training grant, theevidence of the training experience,
so what's going to be gained in thatsense, can be as important as the, you
know, the specific research proposed.
Lauren Ullrich (07:04):
So we often tell applicants to contact the program official
or the program directors as we callthem at NINDS to, you know, get advice.
But there's a lot of other thingsthat the program director is doing.
So will you take us through afew of the other responsibilities
that program director has?
Ned Talley (07:23):
Yeah.
So there are a number of different thingsthat we're focused on, on the programmatic
side and it, um, sort of comes downto different parts of the grant cycle.
You know, one of the things we do is wedo write specific program announcements.
If there are areas of emphasisthat we feel need to be bolstered.
(07:48):
Um, so for example, for the BRAINInitiative, we have a K 99 program that's
distinct from other programs at NIH.
And that was something that we, youknow, spent a good bit of time developing
in addition, um, after a grant is, um,reviewed, it's the program director who's
the main point of contact and advocatefor the research that's being proposed.
(08:15):
Um, and in some respects we are a brokerof information about your project and
your prospects, um, to the NIH, um, andto the rest of the NIH, you know, to
the rest of NINDS and we're the oneswho sort of translate what you're doing
(08:37):
into, um, the kinds of information thatare necessary for the funding decisions.
So a lot happens beyond justthe peer review and we're
responsible for a lot of it.
Marguerite Matthew (08:51):
How does one find who their official is and who to
talk to, especially when it comes toperhaps a certain scientific expertise?
Vicky Whittemore (09:01):
So, there are several ways.
You can ask your mentor who the programdirector is for their NIH funded grants,
um, and contact that program official.
You can also go on matchmakerand identify through matchmaker,
someone who is a program directorfor that area of research.
Um, there are, I thinkthere are other ways.
(09:23):
If you look in the funding opportunityannouncement itself, there will be
a contact for possibly the trainingoffice or particular program
directors who you can contact.
And if they're not the right person,they'll redirect you to the person
you should, you should be contacting.
Dave Owens (09:39):
Now that that would be all prior to submission.
Once you've actually submitted, youwill be assigned a program officer.
So, in the electronic researchadministrator, I believe
you have an account and um,
Lauren Ullrich (09:53):
ERA.
Dave Owens (09:54):
ERA.
You have an account, you would goin there, there will be a program
officer listed that would be,that is your program director.
Lauren Ullrich (10:01):
So then after you submit then the application
moves to assignment and review.
So, can one of you give usa brief overview of what
happens during that process?
N (10:12):
So when the application comes in, it goes to the center for scientific
review, which is a separate NIH entity.
They're responsible for making theassignments of the specific NIH Institute
and they do that based on the coverletter and on the content of the science.
And then also assigning it to areview panel and the center for
(10:37):
scientific review known as CSR, theyrun about 60% of the NIH reviews.
The remainder of the reviews areactually run by individual institutes
Dave Owen (10:48):
In that initial phase when you submit it, when it does go
to CSR for, well, it goes into a placecalled receipt and referral, so they
receive them and then refer them.
You can provide a cover letter, youcan actually make a recommendation of
where, what institute you would want tobe assigned to and what study section
you would want to be assigned to.
So you can go in to CSR websiteand go into individual institutes'
(11:10):
websites to see what these panels are.
Now in some cases there is no optionand I'm going to use an example of
what is called an RFA and if we releasean RFA, its a a one time request for
applications where they actually puta review panel together for that.
So there really is no option.
You would be reviewed in that panel.
Now for other programs, some of thetraining programs, there could be one
(11:35):
or more panels and if someone lookedat that and they said, you know,
based on the composition, I actuallythink this panel would be in the best
position to review my application.
You can make that requestin the cover letter.
It's a request, you know, it'snot necessarily a demand, but
I think they're actually veryresponsive to these requests, CSR.
Ned Talley (11:53):
So your grant gets assigned to a review panel.
Otherwise known as a study section andit gets read and critiqued by at least
three reviewers and they actually providewritten critiques based on what they read.
And then for approximately half ofthe applications that are deemed to be
(12:15):
in the top tier, um, the applicationsare actually discussed by the panel
and the scientific review officeris responsible for writing a summary
of paragraph of that discussion.
So regardless of how your grantscores, you're going to get these
written critiques and if your grantscores in the top half, you'll also
(12:36):
get a summary of the discussion.
Vicky Whittemore (12:39):
So the program director's role at that point is to
either attend in person or by phone andlisten to the review of your application.
And we try to do that as much aspossible because what that does
then is it really helps us to betterinform you about the written summary
statement that you will receive.
(13:01):
We can help you to identify theareas in the summary statement that
seemed to be the biggest stickingpoints or where there was discussion.
Um, one of the things we find with thesummary statements is that they're written
prior to review by the three reviewers.
And they sometimes do sometimes don't goback and make revisions to the summary
(13:21):
statements even though they're asked todo that after review, if they have changed
their mind or want to make changes.
But listening for us to listen to thereview, it really helps us to better give
you better advice if you're going to needto revise and resubmit your application.
Ned T (13:38):
And after the discussion, the panel actually votes on the score.
And then based on the historicalscoring of that panel, your grant will
receive a percentile, um, indicatinghow it falls relative to other grants
that have been reviewed by that panel.
And then the Institute has policiesbased on percentile scoring about
(14:04):
where the funding lines are drawn.
A lot of times it's determined bythe budget and typically what happens
is the Institute will have a rangewhere everything gets funded and then
arrange where nothing gets funded.
And then a range where, youknow, it requires further
assessment by program staff.
(14:25):
And that's um, often where people fall.
And, um, so it's a good idea toum, understand where your score
is and what kinds of things, um,NIH might need to know from you
to help in making this decision.
Marguerite Matthews (14:43):
So after a grant has been submitted and
reviewed, it will go to pre councilprogram review and recommendation.
I don't think any of our listenersknow what that actually means.
Can one of you explain that process to us?
Vicky Whitt (14:57):
As Ned pointed out, typically for the training grounds,
there's a zone of grants that scored wellthat are definitely going to be funded.
There is a zone of grants that scored notso well but will definitely not be funded.
And the important zone is the zonein the middle, which are the grants
that require additional discussion.
(15:20):
And quite often, program directors willreach out to the grantees whose grants
fall into that zone and request additionalinformation from you, ask you to respond
to some of the concerns or weaknessesthat were raised in the summary statement
and give you the opportunity to respondand provide that additional information
(15:41):
so that then, at the pre-councilmeeting, when your grant comes up for
review, your program director can thenbetter represent your grant advocate
on behalf of you regarding funding orwhether the Institute should consider
funding or not funding your application.
Lauren Ul (15:59):
We mentioned payline, and in terms of NINDS, we're quite
largely payline driven for R01s, but alot of training and career mechanisms
are not percentile because they'reonly reviewed in one study section.
So can you go into how programdirectors make the decision--just
(16:20):
based on the impact score, what kindsof information they take into account?
Ned Talley (16:25):
You know, often, um, the study section, you know, they,
they have one shot at the review,they don't have all the information
and, you know, afterwards there maybe issues that aren't quite clear.
And if we get more information fromthe applicant, um, and resolve some of
the questions that the peer reviewersweren't able to resolve that can,
(16:46):
you know, clarify things and move theapplication into category, that's, um,
you know, we're funding is more likely.
I think that, uh, those arereally important considerations.
You know, the fact that it's, it's sortof a two step process, the first the
peer review and then we have a chanceto sort of assess things in more detail.
Vicky Whittemore (17:07):
And I would add to that that often how well
you respond to the request forinformation is critically important.
So take that seriously ifyou're asked for a response.
And for additional information becausewe as program directors are really
interested in having that informationto clarify issues raised in review.
Ne (17:26):
And as long as we're talking about training mechanisms, I think it's
really important for people to understand.
I said this before, but I think it's worthrepeating that we're often looking at a
lot more than just the research project.
It's, um, you know, the overall trainingenvironment and the mentoring plan.
And often I find that this isan opportunity for applicants
(17:46):
to actually improve the overallmentoring plan that they're getting
because is part of the application.
You're asked to describe theenvironment and sometimes it's really
useful to get sort of a, you know,a mentoring committee for example,
or get some way of incorporatingfeedback beyond just your advisor.
(18:07):
Um, and, and this kind of grantapplication and provides you an
opportunity to actually have thatdiscussion and, and make the kinds
of requests that could actuallymake a big impact on your career.
Marguerite Matthews (18:20):
All right.
So after pre council, theapplications will go to council.
Who are on the council?
Dave Owe (18:25):
Um, so every Institute at the NIH has what is called and
you know, and advisory council,these are chartered bodies that
are actually, it's very official,known as a FACA committee and it's
actually, there's a law that covers it.
So we can't actually fundanything unless an advisory, our
advisory council approves it.
Um, what they provide is what'sknown as the second level of review.
(18:48):
They do not re-review the application,but they kind of look at the process and
what we do is make a proposal to them.
We make a funding plan overall, inwhich we cover all the grants we
wanted to fund for a council round.
We meet, we have an open session wherewe may discuss policy issues or whatnot,
but then we have a closed sessionwhere they will review our funding plan
(19:09):
and then they can approve it or not.
Now the director of the institute isactually the final pathway of approval.
The director is the one who actuallyapproves funding council is the
council is advisory to the director.
Now the only, the, the one thingabout council, I would say they do
have the ability, if they actuallyvoted that we shouldn't fund
(19:31):
something, we are bound by that.
But usually they just simply makerecommendations to the director of the
institute that the director will takethat under consideration, and then the
final funding plan is approved by them.
Ned Talley (19:43):
Yeah.
And the, um, you know, just like thecomposition of the NIH study sections,
the composition of the Institutecouncils are available on the web.
And so for NINDS, if you just Googleand NINDS council, it'll come up and,
and you can see who the roster is.
It's typically eminent scientistsalong with people from industry
(20:05):
and from advocacy organizations.
U m, focused on variousneurological diseases.
Dave Ow (20:11):
And let me add to that.
So when I brought up it's aFACA committee, there actually
is a required composition thatcouncil has to be a part of.
So for example, we have to have a thirdof them being, um, basic, it's not basic
researchers but research scientists andlike a third half to be public members.
So they can be from advocacy, theycan be from the professions of law,
(20:33):
uh, other professions, but it's veryprescribed what the council has to be.
And in fact, the Department of Healthand Human Services have to approve our
council rosters as we call them or slates.
Lauren Ul (20:46):
And the one exception to council is fellowships, right?
Those do not go to council.
They do not.
The counsel--they do not go tothe meeting, but council is made
aware of these, the funding plans.
Right.
Ned (20:59):
And in practice, you know, um, I think the, the funding process
for fellowships is not a lot differentfrom the research project grants.
Um, you know, legally they don't go,they don't actually get reviewed by
council, but, um, otherwise all ofthe, you know, all of the preparation
that we do and the recommendationsthat we make to the institute director,
(21:23):
um, wind up being pretty similar.
Marguerit (21:25):
So what happens if an application is not approved for funding?
Can they resubmit or what should happen?
Ned Talley (21:33):
Well, first you need to recognize that you're
in really good company.
[laughter] So, you know,typically it's around 20% of
applications that get funded.
And you're talking about 20%; the other80% are from people who are outstanding.
So it's not a situation where a rejectionin this case doesn't mean that your
(21:57):
career is off to the wrong track.
All it means is you didn'thit the goal of this time.
I think you really need tounderstand that, um, that grant
writing is just part of the process.
Um, you need to step back and, andchill out and say, you know, what,
what sorts of things can I do to, tohit it into the goal of the next time.
(22:20):
I think that's where a program staffare here to help you understand
and interpret the feedback thatyou get from the critiques.
And it's really critical and it'sreally valuable to talk to program
directors at that point in the process.
Vicky Whitte (22:37):
And whether or not you can resubmit really depends on where
you're at in your stage of your career.
And so it's important to lookat the funding announcements.
So for example, the NINDS F32,you can submit prior to joining
a lab or during the first year.
But if you are now beyond that point, youwon't be able to resubmit that grant if
(23:00):
it's not funded the first time around.
So it's really important to understandthose eligibility criteria as well.
Dave (23:08):
But you would be willing, you'd be, um, able to probably submit
to a different type of program.
But I mean, I would add also thenthat in terms of the critiques
or the summary statement as it'scalled, take that very seriously.
So it's, it's usually notcompletely idiosyncratic.
So if there were issues brought upthere and even if you change the
program and you're applying to adifferent type of training grant,
(23:31):
many of those things would stay.
So you know, you don't--just becauseit's a new program and maybe even a
new study section, some of the issues,the concerns tend to be very universal.
So you want to take the summarystatement and the critiques that
are ther very seriously, youwant to address those issues.
I mean that's the first step.
If, if I was not funded I would, youknow, read that very, very carefully.
Maybe even have a discussion withfirst year, your mentor, then
(23:55):
the NIH staff and, and you know,formulate a plan of what you would do.
Cause sometimes there's things thatyou would need to do some major
changes and some are not so much, sayit's a collection of smaller issues.
So that's the key step is to kind ofreassess and think about the path forward.
And I would agree with Ned in thesense that you know, you're in good
company when you don't get funded.
(24:15):
But I think our analysis we've doneover many types of programs, if you
stay with it, there's a very goodlikelihood that you will succeed.
Lauren (24:23):
That's a great message.
Dave Owens (24:24):
Yeah.
Lauren Ullrich (24:25):
So let's say you do succeed, you get, you're getting
your funding, um, what happens duringthe issuance of the grant award?
Vicky Whittemore (24:34):
So the first thing is that you will be asked for
additional information, what's calledJIT or just in time information.
And typically what that is, is you'reasked for to, to report if you have
any other support, meaning are yougetting funding support from any
other organization such that therewould be overlap with the NIH funding
(24:57):
as well as, um, if you have, you'reusing animal studies, do you have the
appropriate IACUC approvals to do thosestudies, or for clinical studies, do
you have the appropriate IRB approvals?
So all of those kinds of things, ifthey're not, haven't been provided in
the application, you'll have to submitafter the grant has been, it's been
(25:19):
determined that the grant will be funded.
Once the award's issued, then you'llreceive a notice of award that will
indicate the start date in the terms ofof your application or of your grant.
And it's important to read that carefullybecause some mechanisms have specific
terms and things that you need to beaware of as you carry out your research.
(25:45):
There may be specific budget restrictions,so again, for example, if you are doing
a clinical study, they may decide toissue the notice of award prior to you
having IRB approval, but there willthen be a restriction that you're not
allowed to do any human subjects studiesuntil you receive that IRB approval.
Marguerite Matthews (26:04):
And what NINDS staff person should they be
talking to about the actual award?
Dav (26:10):
The program officer is one.
Now there's actually a branch in NINDSand every NIH Institute that actually
do the physical issuing of the awards.
So that's the grants management branch.
And so there'll be also in addition to theprogram director, there'll be the grants
management specialist who's assigned to aapplication and they will know about some
(26:31):
of the administrative requirements thatare necessary to move the reward forward.
Frankly, the program officerknows many of those as well.
So it's, you know, it's acollaboration to get those out.
So the individual couldspeak to either one of them.
Ned (26:43):
And, um, typically the way it works is that the grants specialist
actually will be corresponding withthe organizational signing official in
the grants office at your institution.
So it turns out that, you know,the grants are submitted by the
institution and, um, so a lot ofthat correspondence, uh, regarding
(27:04):
official award information actuallyhas to go through your grants office.
So, you know, I think that it'ssomething where you're going to
want to, want to make sure thatthe appropriate individuals are
contacted, um, within your institution.
But typically that's not much of aproblem because you know, the staff
here actually already know who theappropriate, um, individuals are.
Lauren Ullrich (27:26):
So taking a little bit of a step back.
So NINDS funds thousands of grantsevery year, how do we keep track of
what any individual person is doingwith the money that we give them,
but also overall in terms of thinkingbig picture, what we're funding?
Dave Owe (27:47):
The federal government works on a yearly budget, so we're
given a budget per year, yet wemake awards over multiple years.
Let's just use a five as an example.
A grant that is issued for five yearsfrom our one year budget, it moves into a
phase called a non competitive phase, soyou don't have to be reviewed again, you
are reviewed by your program officer forprogress, but you know, once a year you
(28:08):
submit what is called a progress report.
And so that's the way for the NINDSand the program officers to monitor the
progress of the individual projects.
Now there's some exceptions such as, um,there's a thing called multi-year funding.
We would actually pay the wholegrant up front, but the individual
is still required to submitthose yearly progress reports.
(28:29):
Once again, it's a way to ensure,you know, good stewardship of the
taxpayers' dollars; to make sure that theprogress in the project is going well.
Now, the bigger question ofall the grants we fund yet, we,
there are automated systems.
We do a great deal of analysisto keep track of everything.
Um, I don't think I couldgo into all the details.
Lauren Ullrich (28:52):
That'll be the last episode of the podcast.
Da (28:54):
It's, it's a big enterprise, but we do monitor literally everything.
N (28:58):
And it's important for people to understand
um, it's a grant, it's not a contract.
Um, and what you're expected to dois to be working on that project in
terms of the goals that are written.
If you see that your project isgoing in a different direction and
(29:21):
the goals are changing, typicallythat's not a big deal at all.
However, you know, it'sworthwhile for you to contact,
you know, the program director.
If you think that, you know, it'sa really significant change just
to make sure they're in the loop.
Events for training that would really,um, be really important to contact.
(29:44):
The, the program director would be,say for example, a change, a mentor.
I think a you, you should consider NIHas a resource in the sense of getting,
you know, feedback on changes, butalso just to make sure that, um, you
know, everything is, is interpretedthe way that you're interpreting it.
Vicky Whit (30:02):
And I would add just one more thing, that is that things
happen and sometimes the progressyou had hoped to make over the course
of the year just doesn't happen.
So for example, I know I have agrantee whose animal facility had to
be closed down because of an infectionthat swept through the whole thing in
this--and so the grantee couldn't dotheir research because they couldn't,
(30:26):
didn't have access to their animals.
So we understand whenthings like that happen.
And so the caution or words ofadvice is don't panic, but tell us
what's happening and we understandwhen, when things like that happen.
Lauren Ullrich (30:41):
Right.
And tell us early.
Vicky Whittemore (30:43):
yes.
Laur (30:45):
Cause we can do a lot more to help you the sooner we know, rather
than trying to fix things after the fact.
Dave Owens (30:50):
And let me add onto one thing Ned said.
So there is actually, youknow, you, you have submitted a
proposal, it's received funding.
In that proposal you would lay it out,the research you're gonna conduct, there
is flexibility for change in there.
There is a point where theoreticallyit goes beyond the scope.
Now this is a somewhat of atechnical term to change scope.
(31:12):
You actually have to requestprior approval from the NIH.
And this isn't, you know, there's caseswhere, Oh I was studying molecule X
in axon guidance and I've got data.
Now it looks like a moleculeY is more important.
That is within scope.
Out of scope is if I'm just going touse a radical example, it's an animal
study and now you want to do humansubjects research, that would be a
(31:35):
major change in scope and you wouldhave to get our approval to do it
Lauren Ullrich (31:39):
right.
And if you're not sure, you can justreach out to the program officer--
Dave Owens (31:41):
Absolutely.
Lauren Ullrich (31:42):
--and they'll let you know.
Marguerite Matthews (31:44):
So for trainees, when should they start
thinking about a new grant cycle?
So they have an award.
When should they start thinkingabout the next award year?
Ned Talley (31:54):
A year in advance.
It takes a year to from submissionto award when you factor in, you
know, the writing of the grantand um, so you really need to sort
of plan things out in advance.
Vicky Whittemor (32:08):
I think it also depends on your individual situation.
What I'm seeing quite often as someonewho has say an F32 fellowship, there
may be a gap between when that grantends and their next grant starts
and their mentor picks them up onfunding that they have in the lab.
But again, that's a very individualthing and, and you really need to
(32:29):
be thinking ahead in terms of howwill your research be supported
if you have a gap in your funding.
Dave Owens (32:37):
For a trainee, it's probably the ideal.
You should always bethinking of the next grant.
I mean, if you're going to become afederally sponsored researcher at each
stage, you know there's a process and you,you know, if you have an F32 which is a
postdoctoral fellowship and you're on thejob market looking for faculty positions,
you should actually be thinking about whatyou would write in your first research
(32:58):
grant as an independent investigator.
I don't think it's ever toosoon to think about that.
Um, you know, you don't have to actuallyinitiate those things, but it's worthwhile
to learn all the different steps in,in having a successful research career.
And this is where, you know, talkingto your NIH program officers, people
who work at NIH can be quite helpful.
I mean, they can tell you alltheir experiences and, and we
(33:20):
are here to answer questions.
That's a big part of our joband we actually like to do it.
So, you know, always reach out to us.
Lauren U (33:27):
So to wrap up, I think a lot of trainees think of NIH as a
monolith and we were hoping throughthis podcast to talk a little bit more
about the idiosyncrasies of NINDS.
so is there anything in particularthat grantees and trainees should know
(33:47):
about the ways in which NINDS mightbe different than other institutes?
Vicky Whit (33:53):
One thing that I can think of right away is that in NINDS, the
program director will likely be a personthat is sort of that topic area expert.
So for example, I oversee thetraining awards in epilepsy in, I
know talking to some of my colleaguesin other institutes, there will be
(34:14):
one person or a couple of people thatwill oversee all training grants.
So that person may or may not haveexpertise in their actual area of
research, even though it may bewithin the mission of that Institute.
So I think that's one big differencebetween NINDS and some of the
other institutes here at NIH.
Lauren Ullrich (34:33):
Right.
So with a training award, you cancontact the training office and then we
can help shepherd you through the sortof career development aspects and the
more general aspects of the application.
But then for any scientific questions,we'll direct you to the program
officer that holds that scientificportfolio because we know that
they're the best ones to speak to thestate of the science in that area.
(34:54):
So it really is a partnership betweenour offices and the scientific program
directors, which you're right, itis different at other institutes.
Ned (35:04):
And I think it's important, you know, this is sort of implicit in some
of the things we've been talking about.
That the important factor here isthat each Institute has its own
mission and its own budget andit's own mandate from Congress.
And so every Institute, their prioritiesare slightly different and their
(35:25):
processes are slightly different.
And um, because of that, you wantto reach out to the appropriate NIH
Institute for your research topic.
And often there may be more than onepotential Institute and it would be
a good idea for you to reach out toeach one of them because it's possible
that you know, one Institute actuallymight put a much higher priority on
(35:49):
what you're thinking of studying.
Marguerit (35:56):
All right, well thank you all for sharing your wisdom today.
Um, will each of you please give onelast piece of advice for our trainees?
We'll start with you, Dave.
Dave (36:04):
As I said, never give up.
[laughter].
We're here to help and asDave said, we like to do it.
So contact us.
Ned T (36:16):
And I would say people go into research, um, because they love
it and I think that you want to makesure that that's part of the balance.
Um, so that, you know, throughthick and thin you know that this
is something you really want to do.
Um, and I think that if you'vegot that in you, then, um, you're
(36:38):
gonna wind up being successful.
Mar (36:40):
Lauren, what's your advice?
Lauren Ullr (36:42):
I think just really thinking about how long the process takes.
We referenced this earlier, so partof it is writing the application,
which always seems to take at leasttwice as long as you think it will.
But then we just talked about all thedifferent steps that have to happen
between when you hit submit and whenthat actual award goes out the door.
And you're lucky if it's six months.
(37:02):
I think the average fromsubmission to award is nine months.
That's a long time.
So build that into your timelineand be thinking about that, um, when
you're doing your five year plan.
Marguerite?
Marguerite Matthews (37:16):
I would say keep listening to the podcast so
you can learn a lot more abouteach stage of the grant cycle.
Lauren Ullrich (37:25):
That's all that we have time for today on"Building
Up The Nerve, so thank you somuch to our guests this week.
And also thank you to programdirector, Dr. Bob Riddle for
our theme song and music.
See you next time when we take youthrough initiating your research idea.
You can find past episodes of thispodcast and many more grant application
resources on the web at NINDS.nih.gov.
Marguerite M (37:48):
Email us questions at nindsnervepod@nih.gov and be sure
to subscribe to the podcast on ApplePodcasts or your favorite podcast
app so you won't miss an episode.
See you next time.
Popular Podcasts
Joy 101 with Hoda Kotb
Joy is essential. And it's also elusive. You can't order it, borrow it, or simply hope it into life. But now, there's a new and exciting way to start your journey toward a more joyful existence: The Joy 101 Podcast with Hoda! Best known for her Emmy-winning work and co-anchoring Today, Hoda Kotb infuses her authenticity, curiosity, and warmth into conversations with the world’s most fascinating people. Entertainment legends, sport icons, wellness experts, and everyday folks will share how they find, allow, and experience joy. Hoda will offer her own tips and takes on seeking a more balanced, harmonious life. If you're craving inspiration, support, and useful tools to maximize your joy, tune in to these candid, uplifting, and moving on-air chats. Joy after a breakup, joy as an empty-nester, joy after loss, joy as a caretaker — Hoda's new podcast will speak to you. Joy 101 with Hoda Kotb, an iHeartPodcast.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com