November 15, 2019 • 31 mins
Hear from program directors Drs. Glenn Nuckolls, Francesca Bosetti, and Shai Silberberg on choosing a research topic, reading a funding opportunity announcement, and talking to your program director.
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/558574/2050863-episode-3-initiating-the-research-idea
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.
Hi, I'm Lauren Ullrich, a scientificprogram manager at NINDS, and we
(00:26):
actually have a guest host today.
Michelle Jones-London (00:28):
And I'm Michelle Jones-London, the Chief of
the Office of Programs to Enhance theNeuroscience Workforce here at NINDS.
And we're your hosts today!Last time we gave a big picture
overview of the grant cycle and whatto expect for the rest of this podcast.
On this episode, we are goingto do a deeper dive, beginning
(00:49):
with initiating a research idea.
We are going to talk about choosing aresearch topic, different types of grant
mechanisms, how to read an FOA, and whereto find the resources to actually help you
submit a successful response to the FOA.
As always, I want to state thedisclaimer that everything we talk
(01:09):
about may only be relevant for NINDSand if you're applying to a different
NIH institute, it's always best tocheck with them about their policies.
Lauren (01:25):
Okay, so joining us this episode are Dr. Francesca Bossetti, a
program director in the neural environmentcluster, Dr. Glenn Nuckolls, a program
director in the neurogenetics cluster andDr. Shai Silberberg, who does double duty
as director of the Office of ResearchQuality and a program director in the
Channel Synapses and Circuits cluster.
So let's begin with introductions.
(01:45):
Francesca, do you want to start us off?
Francesca Bossetti (01:47):
So, thanks for having me here.
Uh, at NINDS, I oversee, the ischemicstroke research portfolio as well as the
blood brain barrier research portfolio.
I've been here for nine years.
And before I was principal investigatorin the intramural research program
(02:08):
at the National Institute of Agingat NIH studying neuroinflammation
and also models of Alzheimer'sdisease, aging and demyelination.
Um, some of my hobbies outside ofwork: volleyball, I've been playing
since I was in high school and Inever stopped and it's really fun.
(02:30):
And, uh, recently Itook on karate as well.
Lauren Ullrich (02:34):
Nice! Glen?
Glen Nuckolls (02:38):
Okay.
Hi, I'm Glen Nuckolls.
I'm a program director in theneurogenetics cluster and I manage a
portfolio of grants in the musculardystrophies, spinal muscular
atrophy and peripheral neuropathies.
Um, so I also, uh, I'm the designatedfederal official for a committee called
the muscular dystrophy coordinatingcommittee and involves NIH and other
(03:00):
federal agencies and advocacy groups.
And, uh, we meet to talk about issuesof importance to the stakeholders
in the muscular dystrophy field.
Uh, so I've been at NINDS forfive years, uh, in this current
program director position.
Before that, uh, I worked for a differentInstitute, the National Institute
of Arthritis and Musculoskeletaland Skin Diseases for 19 years.
(03:22):
So I started in the intramuralprogram doing cartilage biology
and skeletal development.
And then I was a review officer,scientific review officer.
And then for 10 years, I was aprogram director for, uh, muscular
dystrophies and muscle diseases.
And I also did a brief periodas an acting division director
for extramural activities.
So hobbies, so I'm learning how toweld steel, um, uh, uh, shielded
(03:48):
metal arc welding, which is alsoknown as stick welding for kind of
some practical purposes and some,you know, attempts at art, so.
Lauren Ullrich (03:57):
That's exciting.
Shai?
Shai Silberberg (04:00):
Hello.
Uh, my name is Shai Silberberg.
I'm the director for research qualityat NINDS and also a program director.
And, uh, my focus as a programdirector is on, uh, basic research
on ion channels and transporters.
As the director for researchquality, I, uh, oversee activities
(04:25):
at NINDS, uh, related toimproving the quality of science.
I'm also involved in many, uh,external activities, uh, in NIH in
general and also internationally totry to improve the quality of science.
Been here now for, uh, 15 years.
(04:47):
And, uh, before coming to NIH, I, uh,was a associate professor at a university
in Israel, uh, studying, uh, thephysiology and biophysics of ion channels.
When I came to NIH, I was firstin the intramural program for
three years doing research andthen moved over to extramural.
(05:11):
As hobbies, I don't have a lotof time for hobbies, but, uh, I
enjoy sailing, uh, and photography.
Lauren Ullrich (05:17):
Nice.
Michelle Jones-London (05:19):
So a lot of wisdom around this room and
also just interesting people.
So hopefully this gets you, itgives you a sense of the knowledge
base that we have, um, at the NINDSbut also that we're people too.
Lauren Ullrich (05:33):
Yeah.
Sp (05:42):
[music playing in background
Michelle Jone (05:42):
So to dive in, we said we would talk about how do you think
about developing a research question.
So let's start with theresearch question itself.
At a lot of meetings, what I'll getis misconceptions about the kinds
of research that NIH will fund.
And what I'll hear is that "NIHonly cares about translational
(06:03):
research" or "NIH only wants diseasefocused research." If an applicant's
research is purely basic science,can they still get funded from NIH?
Shai Silberberg (06:15):
Oh, absolutely.
As a program director in a very basic,uh, portfolio, uh, it's important to
recognize that the mission of NIH andof NINDS is to acquire knowledge, uh,
that can hopefully then be used toimprove the well being of, of people.
(06:36):
So basic research is, is of fundamentalimportance and actually at NINDS, we
specifically have a program to encourage,uh, grant applications and basic research.
Lauren Ullri (06:49):
So if an applicant has a basic science question that
could span multiple institutes, howdo they know which one to apply to?
Francesca Bosset (06:57):
Well, they can start to reaching out to, to a program
staff in one of the institutes anduh, uh, hopefully, um, they will get
an answer or they could, uh, engagewith multiple, uh, institutes and see
which one, uh, is the most appropriatefor, for that proposed research.
Glen Nuckoll (07:17):
Yeah, um, NIH also has a website called matchmaker
and if you just Google search "NIHmatchmaker" uh, it'll take you to it.
So it gives you a box where you canput your text from, you know, your
specific aims or something like thatand it'll match it up with currently
funded grants and also identify programdirectors that have that, that area.
(07:39):
So, um, you know, please contact theprogram director if you need guidance.
But, uh, you know, one, one bit ofadvice is, um, try not to spam us.
Uh, it's better if you contactone program director and hopefully
that person will respond quickly.
And if not, then go on to anotherprogram director rather than
send it at once to a whole bunchof different program directors.
Michelle Jones-London (08:00):
Yeah.
And that sort of gets to (08:01):
when I contact a program director or a
program officer, what things shouldI ask or shouldn't I ask in terms of
the grant process when I reach out?
Francesca Boss (08:15):
So things to ask are, first of all, if you engage in the
discussion with the program director,it would be good to have at least a
draft of the aims of the project thatyou are interested in moving forward.
And uh, and then you can ask if thatis mission relevant for the Institute.
And, uh, you can ask, uh, you know,for general comments about, um, what is
(08:40):
the, um, what is an appropriate studysection to review that application or
if there are any things that, uh, couldbe a problem, could be problematic as
written, but you shouldn't ask us tohelp you write the proposal or, um,
you know, you shouldn't, uh, ask us tomake the decision for you whether you
(09:03):
should keep one experiment in or not.
These are things that are, uh, bestdiscussed with your mentor and colleagues.
Shai Silberb (09:12):
I, if I may add to that, I think an important thing to
do is to reach out early, not to haveyour grant fully written, three days
before the submission date and thensay, you know, can you give me advice?
That's way too late.
Spend a lot of time putting togetherthe ideas of specific aims and
(09:33):
where you see this project going.
And that's a good time to get advice.
And only after you get advice from programstaff or mentors, from colleagues, that's
the time to start writing the application.
Glen Nuckolls (09:46):
Yeah.
And I think particularly in the, uh,in the F and K awards, there's a lot of
intricacies to those, uh, mechanisms.
And so contacting us early, a lot ofthe features of those types of grants
are different with different institutes.
Uh, so it's good, you know, tocheck with the program director
and make sure that you're applyingto an Institute that accepts, you
(10:08):
know, that funding opportunity.
Yeah, I agree, way in advance.
Lauren Ullrich (10:12):
So speaking of specific aims, I think there's a
lot of strongly held opinions abouthow aims should be structured.
And sometimes trainees can get confusedor, or think there's a right answer.
And so I was wondering if youhad any advice about how to
approach the aims section.
Francesca Bos (10:34):
So I can start by saying that the aims should make a story
so they should be tied to each other,but they should not depend on each
other and specifically don't want oneaim to be dependent on the success of
the previous aim because that is a bigissue that always comes up in review.
(10:54):
So independent but tied scientifically.
Glen Nuckol (10:59):
Yeah, I think that, you know, most draft aims that
we see are overly ambitious, uh,from, from new investigators and
also from senior investigators.
It's just that new investigatorsare even more overly ambitious.
Uh, and uh, reviewers liketo see a manageable set of
aims that are done in depth.
So I think, uh, you know, the depth ofunderstanding that will be gained from it
(11:23):
is much more important than the breadth.
Michelle Jones-London (11:26):
I think that's a great point.
And I think it also ties in to,especially for fellowships and
career development awards, you havea specific timeline for the training.
And so if the research plan doesn'tmatch the actual time available
for the training, it's a disconnectand it's going to raise a flag.
(11:48):
Speaking about specific aims, Shai,do you want to talk a little bit
about, um, NIH is, it's always been apriority, but now we actually put it
out in front and in the review criteria.
Do you want to touch a little bit on rigoras the head of the office here at NINDS?
Shai Silberberg (12:06):
Sure.
I'll be happy to.
It's important to recognize thatwhat I'm going to talk about has been
implemented primarily for R01s andother advanced, uh, forms of funding.
For fellowships.
NIH has not yet come outwith specific guidelines.
However, these should be kept in mindwhen, when putting the application
(12:29):
together because they relate to doing,you know, high quality and good science.
So NIH introduced four, uh, enhancementsto, uh, the grant review, the first one
being the rigor of the prior research.
In other words, when you put in anapplication, you need to, uh, consider
(12:52):
whether the data that you're using tomake the point why you want to do what
you want to do is actually done carefully.
And if there are issues with someof that data, how you going to
address them within your application.
So it's not dead in the water if oneof the pieces of information you using
(13:14):
from other, either your research orsomeone else's research has potential
issues in it because you can see howyou will address it when, you know, when
you come to do your own experiments.
The second thing is you haveto describe what you're going
to do in your application tominimize unconscious biases.
(13:36):
So, you have to describe the rigorof the proposed experiments, right?
And, uh, that's important.
So for example, issues such as, you know,can you blind the experiments and to
minimize, uh, biases associated with that.
Can you randomize your sampleswhen you do the experiments, how
you come up with the sample size?
(13:59):
These are all important issuesthat should be discussed if,
if, uh, if at all possible.
The third, uh, addition thatwas made was authentication
of key biological variables.
Uh, it's known for example, that up to30% of cell lines are misidentified.
So you might be thinking that you usingone cell line, but in actual fact you're,
(14:22):
you're using a very different one andyou have to describe what are you going
to do to, to make sure that your celllines are what they, you claim they
are, that the antibodies are actuallyspecific and work well and so on.
The fourth addition isbiological variables such as sex.
(14:43):
And I'm emphasizing here such assex because there are many other
biological variables that needto be taken into consideration.
So for example, if, let's say you'restudying stroke and you're going to use
animal models, it maybe doesn't makea lot of sense to use young healthy
animals as your model as opposed to agedanimals that perhaps have hypertension.
(15:09):
It's important to consider whichvariables would be important for the
experiments that you propose to do.
Lauren Ullrich (15:16):
Okay.
I'm gonna shift gears a little bit.
And, um, so this podcast is mostlyaimed at trainees and a lot of times
we get questions about, what should therelationship be between the trainee's
project and the mentors project.
So there can't be overlap, but how similarcan it be or how different can it be?
(15:38):
What are the things to think aboutwhen coming up with a project?
Glen Nuckolls (15:42):
Well, you know, first of all, um, training awards
usually don't contain enough fundsto pay for the entire project.
So there's kind of an assumptionthat the mentor, you know, has a
grant or has support to make surethat the project gets done to pay
for a lot of the resources for it.
So, you know, that kind of requiresthat there's a relationship between the
(16:05):
research being done through the fellowshipand that from the mentors' grant.
Um, but I think it's really importantfor trainees, maybe even before they join
a lab, to start a conversation about,you know, what's gonna be my part, how
do I intellectually contribute to this?
How do I establish ascientific niche for myself?
(16:27):
And you know, that conversation should beongoing throughout the training period.
And so certainly when the trainee isworking with the mentor to develop a
grant application, the trainee shouldbe the intellectual driving force on it.
Uh, and it, it should be agreedwith the mentor of, you know, uh,
if this works out than, than whatparts can, uh, can the trainee take
(16:51):
with him or her to the next position?
Mich (16:53):
Anything to add Francesca?
Francesca Bossetti (16:56):
No, I agree that overlap, just cutting
and pasting the mentor'saims is a no-no.
And of course you cannot do a totallydifferent thing because otherwise there
wouldn't be research funds to supportthe project, which is tied to the mentors
R01 but again, a niche looking at a, youknow, still within scope but to something
(17:21):
new, it would be the ideal situation.
Lauren Ullrich (17:25):
And this is something that a program officer
could give you guidance on.
Michelle Jones-Lond (17:30):
And I think especially for some of the NINDS programs
like the NINDS F32, there you reallydo want to come up with an idea that
will have your intellectual ownership.
And then more broadly, even forthe K99/R00 it's explicit that they
talk about what piece of the projectyou'll take with you for the R00 part.
Glen Nuckolls (17:55):
Yeah.
I think for K applicants particularly,they need to be thinking about
what is that next grant look like?
Francesca Bossetti (18:02):
Exactly.
Their independent R01.
And then you know, instead of approachingtheir K project, as you know, here's,
here's some interesting science andI'm going to see where it takes me.
It should be, it's filling the gap inpreparation for submission of that R01.
And you know, I tell K applicantssometimes here's a great opportunity
(18:22):
to, you know, use your mentors moneyto make the mouse models that you want
or create the resources that you want.
You know, so a, build yourself atreasure chest in resources that's
going to make you successful as an R01.
Shai Si (18:38):
If I, if I can add, uh, to the treasure chest
science, learn to do rigorous scienceand to report everything transparently.
You may not find these practices inevery lab and in every group that you
interact with, but if you adopt them,then your chances of success will be
(19:00):
significantly greater because you'llgain the respect of your community.
Michelle Jones- (19:05):
So we've talked a lot about the research idea, the
specific aims, and touched on rigor.
I guess another sort of questionthat we get from people is
the opportunities themselves.
How do you tell the difference betweenthe different types of the FOAs?
For some it looks like alphabet soup.
It's RFAs,PAs, PARs, and now we have the NOSI.
(19:31):
Um, would you guys take usthrough what each of those are?
Glen Nuckolls (19:37):
Uh, okay.
So, uh, program announcementscome in different flavors.
So, a straight program announcement.
Um, so you know, soon that willonly be parent announcements
will be program announcements.
But traditionally it means that,uh, it's identifying a, uh, an area
of science, there's no set asidefunds, there's no special review.
(20:01):
If it's an ROI through a PA, it's goingto go to a regular CSR study section.
So it used to be that some programannouncements were identifying
specific scientific areas thatinstitutes wanted to highlight.
Uh, and so as I said, they're going awayand as Michelle pointed out, they're
being replaced by something calleda notice of scientific, of special
(20:22):
interest or scientific interest, NOSIs.
Uh, and so that'll be an uh, um, anotice to the NIH guide that says, you
know, this institute considers it apriority to study this area or research.
Uh, use, you know, and it'll identifywhat funding opportunities can be
used uh, you know, to, to apply.
(20:42):
Sometimes there'll bea set aside of funds.
Um, uh, oftentimes there'll be a list ofprogram announcements that, uh, that would
be responsive so long as it covers that,you know, uh, described area of research.
Okay, so you step up in programannouncements, then you get to, um, a PAR.
So a PAR, the R part means thatit has a special review panel.
(21:06):
Uh, and usually that fundingopportunity announcement is going
to have specialized review criteriathat you really need to pay attention
to when you write your application.
Often times, all of the applicationsresponse to that PAR will be
reviewed by one review panel.
A PAS is a program announcementwith a set aside of funds.
(21:28):
Means that the Institute has decidedits a high enough priority that they
want to designate a funding for, um,applications in response to that.
And then kind of, um, the topof the pinnacle here is a, is an
RFA, a request for application.
And so that is, um, can be asingle receipt date or it can
(21:50):
be multiple receipt dates.
Uh, it comes with usually a specialreview and a set aside of funds and
it's the Institute announcing thatthis is a priority, we want to do, you
know, this specialized, uh, mechanism,these special types of grants or
this special, uh, area of research.
And usually all of the applicationsin response to the RFA are reviewed
(22:13):
together and compared to one another.
Some of those announcements,they go through CSR and they'll
be percentiled, but usually withRFAs, they're not percentiled.
You just get a priority scoreand a summary statement.
Lauren Ullrich (22:26):
Right.
So, for example, the F31 is a PA andit's a parent announcement and they
all come in, um, sort of together andthen they're assigned to different CSR
study sections depending on the topic.
Um, whereas we have an NINDS-specific F32,that's a PAR because it has special review
(22:49):
criteria, and that's reviewed in-houseat NINDS and they're reviewed together.
And then we have the D-SPANor the F99/K00, which is
an NIH blueprint program.
And that's an RFA because it has aset aside budget and very specific
scope and specific review criteria.
Um, and so the most important thing Ithink is to read the FOA and see what it
(23:11):
says and not to get distracted by what allthese little administrative things mean.
But it can be helpful Ithink to, to know what these
different letters are signaling.
Michelle Jones-London (23:24):
And especially where it's reviewed.
So, for example, it's good to knowthat for the NINDS, um, the Ks, all
of the Ks are reviewed by a reviewoffice here at the NINDS and so you
don't have to bother about submittinga cover letter on, you know, what
study section should this go to?
(23:45):
It's really already been decided.
Glen Nuckolls (23:48):
So Michelle, if I can add a point to that.
Uh, so in I think most--I assume itswith the Ks, too, there's form G600,
it's an optional form in the applicationpackage and it's the PHS assignment form.
And you know, that's where normallyan investigator can request a
(24:09):
specific study section and Institute.
Those things I don't think areactually all that important.
But what I think really is importantis on that form you should describe
the appropriate expertise for thereviewers for your application.
You don't name anybody unless youwant to declare somebody that would
be in conflict, but if you describein as much detail as you want, what's
(24:33):
the appropriate expertise, it helpsin some cases get it to the right
study section and it really helps thereview officer get the application
into the hands of the right reviewers.
Mic (24:44):
That's a great point, Glen.
And I think we can all tell that youused to be a scientific review officer.
All (24:48):
[Laughter]
Lauren Ul (24:51):
All right, so keeping on this FOA topic, many applicants don't
really know how to approach the FOA.
They just see this wall of text.
It seems very intimidating.
Um, can you give anyon how to read the FOA?
What are the important parts to,to really pay attention to and are
(25:11):
there any other tips that you have?
Francesca Bosset (25:14):
So I would say the very first thing to look if
the title, per se, is of interest,is to look at the eligibility.
Because if you are not eligible,there is no point wasting your
time and reading all the rest.
If you determine that you are eligible,then I would start with the background
(25:35):
information, areas of interest,areas that instead, should not be
included or are excluded from the FOA.
And also pay close attention to the reviewcriteria because those are things that
the reviewers will specifically evaluate.
(25:55):
So you want to make sure thatyou have all those points well
covered in your application.
Shai Sil (26:02):
That's very well said.
Francesca, I just want to add one thing.
One of the very first things to lookat is the dates [laughter] because
if the dates have passed, then thereis no point in reading further.
Lauren Ullrich (26:12):
Good point.
So finally, do you have any suggestionsfor where applicants can find resources to
help them put their application together?
Francesca Bos (26:25):
Well, our website has a lot of information about different
funding opportunity announcements and uh,and also my suggestion would actually to,
to talk with your mentor, to talk with theother colleagues that have been successful
and uh, really, uh, try to get a mentoringteam that is not just a simply someone
(26:48):
who is very familiar with your area ofscience, but also someone who is very
successful in navigating the grant systemthat can give you very precious advice.
And of course you can alwaysreach out to program staff
and, uh, we are here to help.
But uh, you know, we, uh, it would bemuch more efficient and effective if you
(27:10):
already have done some of the homework.
Michelle Jones-London (27:13):
Yes.
It makes a more informed conversation.
In our closing of this podcast, whatwould be your advice for trainees?
If you could say one sentence,let's go around starting with Shai.
What's your life hackfor a grant submission.
Shai Silberberg (27:33):
Okay.
So my, my recommendation would be thatevery time you submit a grant application
or a manuscript, at least three peopleare forming an opinion about you.
So one needs to put one best footforward, not to say, okay, I'll
let's put it in, I'll see whatcomments I get and then I'll revise.
(27:55):
The best you can possibly do becauseother people are forming opinions.
Francesca Bossetti (28:01):
So if I can follow up on that, I totally agree.
But even if you put your best footforward there is a high chance that
you may not get a fundable score.
And my suggestion is not to give up.
And also that the summary statement withthe critique is your best friend and
you don't have to take it personally.
(28:22):
I know it's hard, when you get it, notto take it personally, but just try to
detach you from, from that applicationand see why the reviewers formed
that opinion and what can you do tomake sure that doesn't happen again.
Michelle Jones-London (28:38):
Great.
Glen Nu (28:40):
So I think for trainees and and new investigators, early stage
investigators, um, you know, what you'redoing at that point in your career
is you're really trying to establisha unique scientific niche and you're
developing kind of your own brand.
Putting your best foot forward certainlycontributes to people thinking the
(29:00):
best of you and know that the qualityof your product comes through.
But I think it's also important, youknow, when you're developing your
scientific niche that it really issomething that you're excited about.
And too often, you know, I thinkpeople think that they have to
put together an application that'scompletely based on the, the training
that they had or something like that.
(29:21):
And if it's not really what they'reexcited about doing, I think that
comes through in an application.
So pick what you think isthe most important science
that you can think to do.
Sometimes you have to go get additionalpeople to help you with that.
You know, still stuff you have tolearn about it, but you know, uh,
this is what you'll be workingon for the rest of your career.
Michelle Jones-London (29:42):
And Lauren, what would you say?
Laur (29:45):
I would say take advantage of all of the resources available,
especially in the training space.
A lot of universities now have programsthey have like write your K courses.
Reach out to your network andsee if other people have applied
(30:05):
or to find out about new awards.
Just really not trying to do itall by yourself and leaning on that
network because they're going to bethere for the rest of your career
and nobody does science alone.
Michelle?
Michelle Jone (30:22):
I guess my advice would be to, you know, to sum up what
you all said, is to allow yourself timeto do all of these things and to be
thoughtful and intentional about it.
And also realize that the grant atthe end, the end of the day, it's
not necessarily about the money.
It feels like that, but itteaches you a lot about, you know,
(30:46):
your long and short term goals.
And so it's a valuable exercise togo through, even if at the end of the
day you don't end up with the award.
I mean, everyone wants that.
But even if you don't, I promiseyou, it will help you focus your
passion about the science that you'reinterested in and it will also force
(31:06):
you, especially for these training andcareer development plans to have some
conversations with your mentor or mentorteam that maybe you wouldn't otherwise.
Um, so I think there's a value in that.
Lauren Ullrich (31:18):
Okay, well that's all we have time for
today on"Building Up The Nerve".
So thank you so much toour guests this week.
And also thank you to programdirector, Dr. Bob Riddle for our
theme song and music and we'll seeyou next time when we tackle the
process of preparing the application.
You can find past episodes of thispodcast and many more grant application
(31:38):
resources on the web at ninds.nih.gov
Michelle Jones-Lo (31:42):
Email us with questions at NINDSNervePod@nih.gov and
make sure you subscribe to"BuildingUp the Nerve" on Apple Podcasts
or wherever you get your podcastsso you don'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.
Hi, I'm Lauren Ullrich, a scientificprogram manager at NINDS, and we
(00:26):
actually have a guest host today.
Michelle Jones-London (00:28):
And I'm Michelle Jones-London, the Chief of
the Office of Programs to Enhance theNeuroscience Workforce here at NINDS.
And we're your hosts today!Last time we gave a big picture
overview of the grant cycle and whatto expect for the rest of this podcast.
On this episode, we are goingto do a deeper dive, beginning
(00:49):
with initiating a research idea.
We are going to talk about choosing aresearch topic, different types of grant
mechanisms, how to read an FOA, and whereto find the resources to actually help you
submit a successful response to the FOA.
As always, I want to state thedisclaimer that everything we talk
(01:09):
about may only be relevant for NINDSand if you're applying to a different
NIH institute, it's always best tocheck with them about their policies.
Lauren (01:25):
Okay, so joining us this episode are Dr. Francesca Bossetti, a
program director in the neural environmentcluster, Dr. Glenn Nuckolls, a program
director in the neurogenetics cluster andDr. Shai Silberberg, who does double duty
as director of the Office of ResearchQuality and a program director in the
Channel Synapses and Circuits cluster.
So let's begin with introductions.
(01:45):
Francesca, do you want to start us off?
Francesca Bossetti (01:47):
So, thanks for having me here.
Uh, at NINDS, I oversee, the ischemicstroke research portfolio as well as the
blood brain barrier research portfolio.
I've been here for nine years.
And before I was principal investigatorin the intramural research program
(02:08):
at the National Institute of Agingat NIH studying neuroinflammation
and also models of Alzheimer'sdisease, aging and demyelination.
Um, some of my hobbies outside ofwork: volleyball, I've been playing
since I was in high school and Inever stopped and it's really fun.
(02:30):
And, uh, recently Itook on karate as well.
Lauren Ullrich (02:34):
Nice! Glen?
Glen Nuckolls (02:38):
Okay.
Hi, I'm Glen Nuckolls.
I'm a program director in theneurogenetics cluster and I manage a
portfolio of grants in the musculardystrophies, spinal muscular
atrophy and peripheral neuropathies.
Um, so I also, uh, I'm the designatedfederal official for a committee called
the muscular dystrophy coordinatingcommittee and involves NIH and other
(03:00):
federal agencies and advocacy groups.
And, uh, we meet to talk about issuesof importance to the stakeholders
in the muscular dystrophy field.
Uh, so I've been at NINDS forfive years, uh, in this current
program director position.
Before that, uh, I worked for a differentInstitute, the National Institute
of Arthritis and Musculoskeletaland Skin Diseases for 19 years.
(03:22):
So I started in the intramuralprogram doing cartilage biology
and skeletal development.
And then I was a review officer,scientific review officer.
And then for 10 years, I was aprogram director for, uh, muscular
dystrophies and muscle diseases.
And I also did a brief periodas an acting division director
for extramural activities.
So hobbies, so I'm learning how toweld steel, um, uh, uh, shielded
(03:48):
metal arc welding, which is alsoknown as stick welding for kind of
some practical purposes and some,you know, attempts at art, so.
Lauren Ullrich (03:57):
That's exciting.
Shai?
Shai Silberberg (04:00):
Hello.
Uh, my name is Shai Silberberg.
I'm the director for research qualityat NINDS and also a program director.
And, uh, my focus as a programdirector is on, uh, basic research
on ion channels and transporters.
As the director for researchquality, I, uh, oversee activities
(04:25):
at NINDS, uh, related toimproving the quality of science.
I'm also involved in many, uh,external activities, uh, in NIH in
general and also internationally totry to improve the quality of science.
Been here now for, uh, 15 years.
(04:47):
And, uh, before coming to NIH, I, uh,was a associate professor at a university
in Israel, uh, studying, uh, thephysiology and biophysics of ion channels.
When I came to NIH, I was firstin the intramural program for
three years doing research andthen moved over to extramural.
(05:11):
As hobbies, I don't have a lotof time for hobbies, but, uh, I
enjoy sailing, uh, and photography.
Lauren Ullrich (05:17):
Nice.
Michelle Jones-London (05:19):
So a lot of wisdom around this room and
also just interesting people.
So hopefully this gets you, itgives you a sense of the knowledge
base that we have, um, at the NINDSbut also that we're people too.
Lauren Ullrich (05:33):
Yeah.
Sp (05:42):
[music playing in background
Michelle Jone (05:42):
So to dive in, we said we would talk about how do you think
about developing a research question.
So let's start with theresearch question itself.
At a lot of meetings, what I'll getis misconceptions about the kinds
of research that NIH will fund.
And what I'll hear is that "NIHonly cares about translational
(06:03):
research" or "NIH only wants diseasefocused research." If an applicant's
research is purely basic science,can they still get funded from NIH?
Shai Silberberg (06:15):
Oh, absolutely.
As a program director in a very basic,uh, portfolio, uh, it's important to
recognize that the mission of NIH andof NINDS is to acquire knowledge, uh,
that can hopefully then be used toimprove the well being of, of people.
(06:36):
So basic research is, is of fundamentalimportance and actually at NINDS, we
specifically have a program to encourage,uh, grant applications and basic research.
Lauren Ullri (06:49):
So if an applicant has a basic science question that
could span multiple institutes, howdo they know which one to apply to?
Francesca Bosset (06:57):
Well, they can start to reaching out to, to a program
staff in one of the institutes anduh, uh, hopefully, um, they will get
an answer or they could, uh, engagewith multiple, uh, institutes and see
which one, uh, is the most appropriatefor, for that proposed research.
Glen Nuckoll (07:17):
Yeah, um, NIH also has a website called matchmaker
and if you just Google search "NIHmatchmaker" uh, it'll take you to it.
So it gives you a box where you canput your text from, you know, your
specific aims or something like thatand it'll match it up with currently
funded grants and also identify programdirectors that have that, that area.
(07:39):
So, um, you know, please contact theprogram director if you need guidance.
But, uh, you know, one, one bit ofadvice is, um, try not to spam us.
Uh, it's better if you contactone program director and hopefully
that person will respond quickly.
And if not, then go on to anotherprogram director rather than
send it at once to a whole bunchof different program directors.
Michelle Jones-London (08:00):
Yeah.
And that sort of gets to (08:01):
when I contact a program director or a
program officer, what things shouldI ask or shouldn't I ask in terms of
the grant process when I reach out?
Francesca Boss (08:15):
So things to ask are, first of all, if you engage in the
discussion with the program director,it would be good to have at least a
draft of the aims of the project thatyou are interested in moving forward.
And uh, and then you can ask if thatis mission relevant for the Institute.
And, uh, you can ask, uh, you know,for general comments about, um, what is
(08:40):
the, um, what is an appropriate studysection to review that application or
if there are any things that, uh, couldbe a problem, could be problematic as
written, but you shouldn't ask us tohelp you write the proposal or, um,
you know, you shouldn't, uh, ask us tomake the decision for you whether you
(09:03):
should keep one experiment in or not.
These are things that are, uh, bestdiscussed with your mentor and colleagues.
Shai Silberb (09:12):
I, if I may add to that, I think an important thing to
do is to reach out early, not to haveyour grant fully written, three days
before the submission date and thensay, you know, can you give me advice?
That's way too late.
Spend a lot of time putting togetherthe ideas of specific aims and
(09:33):
where you see this project going.
And that's a good time to get advice.
And only after you get advice from programstaff or mentors, from colleagues, that's
the time to start writing the application.
Glen Nuckolls (09:46):
Yeah.
And I think particularly in the, uh,in the F and K awards, there's a lot of
intricacies to those, uh, mechanisms.
And so contacting us early, a lot ofthe features of those types of grants
are different with different institutes.
Uh, so it's good, you know, tocheck with the program director
and make sure that you're applyingto an Institute that accepts, you
(10:08):
know, that funding opportunity.
Yeah, I agree, way in advance.
Lauren Ullrich (10:12):
So speaking of specific aims, I think there's a
lot of strongly held opinions abouthow aims should be structured.
And sometimes trainees can get confusedor, or think there's a right answer.
And so I was wondering if youhad any advice about how to
approach the aims section.
Francesca Bos (10:34):
So I can start by saying that the aims should make a story
so they should be tied to each other,but they should not depend on each
other and specifically don't want oneaim to be dependent on the success of
the previous aim because that is a bigissue that always comes up in review.
(10:54):
So independent but tied scientifically.
Glen Nuckol (10:59):
Yeah, I think that, you know, most draft aims that
we see are overly ambitious, uh,from, from new investigators and
also from senior investigators.
It's just that new investigatorsare even more overly ambitious.
Uh, and uh, reviewers liketo see a manageable set of
aims that are done in depth.
So I think, uh, you know, the depth ofunderstanding that will be gained from it
(11:23):
is much more important than the breadth.
Michelle Jones-London (11:26):
I think that's a great point.
And I think it also ties in to,especially for fellowships and
career development awards, you havea specific timeline for the training.
And so if the research plan doesn'tmatch the actual time available
for the training, it's a disconnectand it's going to raise a flag.
(11:48):
Speaking about specific aims, Shai,do you want to talk a little bit
about, um, NIH is, it's always been apriority, but now we actually put it
out in front and in the review criteria.
Do you want to touch a little bit on rigoras the head of the office here at NINDS?
Shai Silberberg (12:06):
Sure.
I'll be happy to.
It's important to recognize thatwhat I'm going to talk about has been
implemented primarily for R01s andother advanced, uh, forms of funding.
For fellowships.
NIH has not yet come outwith specific guidelines.
However, these should be kept in mindwhen, when putting the application
(12:29):
together because they relate to doing,you know, high quality and good science.
So NIH introduced four, uh, enhancementsto, uh, the grant review, the first one
being the rigor of the prior research.
In other words, when you put in anapplication, you need to, uh, consider
(12:52):
whether the data that you're using tomake the point why you want to do what
you want to do is actually done carefully.
And if there are issues with someof that data, how you going to
address them within your application.
So it's not dead in the water if oneof the pieces of information you using
(13:14):
from other, either your research orsomeone else's research has potential
issues in it because you can see howyou will address it when, you know, when
you come to do your own experiments.
The second thing is you haveto describe what you're going
to do in your application tominimize unconscious biases.
(13:36):
So, you have to describe the rigorof the proposed experiments, right?
And, uh, that's important.
So for example, issues such as, you know,can you blind the experiments and to
minimize, uh, biases associated with that.
Can you randomize your sampleswhen you do the experiments, how
you come up with the sample size?
(13:59):
These are all important issuesthat should be discussed if,
if, uh, if at all possible.
The third, uh, addition thatwas made was authentication
of key biological variables.
Uh, it's known for example, that up to30% of cell lines are misidentified.
So you might be thinking that you usingone cell line, but in actual fact you're,
(14:22):
you're using a very different one andyou have to describe what are you going
to do to, to make sure that your celllines are what they, you claim they
are, that the antibodies are actuallyspecific and work well and so on.
The fourth addition isbiological variables such as sex.
(14:43):
And I'm emphasizing here such assex because there are many other
biological variables that needto be taken into consideration.
So for example, if, let's say you'restudying stroke and you're going to use
animal models, it maybe doesn't makea lot of sense to use young healthy
animals as your model as opposed to agedanimals that perhaps have hypertension.
(15:09):
It's important to consider whichvariables would be important for the
experiments that you propose to do.
Lauren Ullrich (15:16):
Okay.
I'm gonna shift gears a little bit.
And, um, so this podcast is mostlyaimed at trainees and a lot of times
we get questions about, what should therelationship be between the trainee's
project and the mentors project.
So there can't be overlap, but how similarcan it be or how different can it be?
(15:38):
What are the things to think aboutwhen coming up with a project?
Glen Nuckolls (15:42):
Well, you know, first of all, um, training awards
usually don't contain enough fundsto pay for the entire project.
So there's kind of an assumptionthat the mentor, you know, has a
grant or has support to make surethat the project gets done to pay
for a lot of the resources for it.
So, you know, that kind of requiresthat there's a relationship between the
(16:05):
research being done through the fellowshipand that from the mentors' grant.
Um, but I think it's really importantfor trainees, maybe even before they join
a lab, to start a conversation about,you know, what's gonna be my part, how
do I intellectually contribute to this?
How do I establish ascientific niche for myself?
(16:27):
And you know, that conversation should beongoing throughout the training period.
And so certainly when the trainee isworking with the mentor to develop a
grant application, the trainee shouldbe the intellectual driving force on it.
Uh, and it, it should be agreedwith the mentor of, you know, uh,
if this works out than, than whatparts can, uh, can the trainee take
(16:51):
with him or her to the next position?
Mich (16:53):
Anything to add Francesca?
Francesca Bossetti (16:56):
No, I agree that overlap, just cutting
and pasting the mentor'saims is a no-no.
And of course you cannot do a totallydifferent thing because otherwise there
wouldn't be research funds to supportthe project, which is tied to the mentors
R01 but again, a niche looking at a, youknow, still within scope but to something
(17:21):
new, it would be the ideal situation.
Lauren Ullrich (17:25):
And this is something that a program officer
could give you guidance on.
Michelle Jones-Lond (17:30):
And I think especially for some of the NINDS programs
like the NINDS F32, there you reallydo want to come up with an idea that
will have your intellectual ownership.
And then more broadly, even forthe K99/R00 it's explicit that they
talk about what piece of the projectyou'll take with you for the R00 part.
Glen Nuckolls (17:55):
Yeah.
I think for K applicants particularly,they need to be thinking about
what is that next grant look like?
Francesca Bossetti (18:02):
Exactly.
Their independent R01.
And then you know, instead of approachingtheir K project, as you know, here's,
here's some interesting science andI'm going to see where it takes me.
It should be, it's filling the gap inpreparation for submission of that R01.
And you know, I tell K applicantssometimes here's a great opportunity
(18:22):
to, you know, use your mentors moneyto make the mouse models that you want
or create the resources that you want.
You know, so a, build yourself atreasure chest in resources that's
going to make you successful as an R01.
Shai Si (18:38):
If I, if I can add, uh, to the treasure chest
science, learn to do rigorous scienceand to report everything transparently.
You may not find these practices inevery lab and in every group that you
interact with, but if you adopt them,then your chances of success will be
(19:00):
significantly greater because you'llgain the respect of your community.
Michelle Jones- (19:05):
So we've talked a lot about the research idea, the
specific aims, and touched on rigor.
I guess another sort of questionthat we get from people is
the opportunities themselves.
How do you tell the difference betweenthe different types of the FOAs?
For some it looks like alphabet soup.
It's RFAs,PAs, PARs, and now we have the NOSI.
(19:31):
Um, would you guys take usthrough what each of those are?
Glen Nuckolls (19:37):
Uh, okay.
So, uh, program announcementscome in different flavors.
So, a straight program announcement.
Um, so you know, soon that willonly be parent announcements
will be program announcements.
But traditionally it means that,uh, it's identifying a, uh, an area
of science, there's no set asidefunds, there's no special review.
(20:01):
If it's an ROI through a PA, it's goingto go to a regular CSR study section.
So it used to be that some programannouncements were identifying
specific scientific areas thatinstitutes wanted to highlight.
Uh, and so as I said, they're going awayand as Michelle pointed out, they're
being replaced by something calleda notice of scientific, of special
(20:22):
interest or scientific interest, NOSIs.
Uh, and so that'll be an uh, um, anotice to the NIH guide that says, you
know, this institute considers it apriority to study this area or research.
Uh, use, you know, and it'll identifywhat funding opportunities can be
used uh, you know, to, to apply.
(20:42):
Sometimes there'll bea set aside of funds.
Um, uh, oftentimes there'll be a list ofprogram announcements that, uh, that would
be responsive so long as it covers that,you know, uh, described area of research.
Okay, so you step up in programannouncements, then you get to, um, a PAR.
So a PAR, the R part means thatit has a special review panel.
(21:06):
Uh, and usually that fundingopportunity announcement is going
to have specialized review criteriathat you really need to pay attention
to when you write your application.
Often times, all of the applicationsresponse to that PAR will be
reviewed by one review panel.
A PAS is a program announcementwith a set aside of funds.
(21:28):
Means that the Institute has decidedits a high enough priority that they
want to designate a funding for, um,applications in response to that.
And then kind of, um, the topof the pinnacle here is a, is an
RFA, a request for application.
And so that is, um, can be asingle receipt date or it can
(21:50):
be multiple receipt dates.
Uh, it comes with usually a specialreview and a set aside of funds and
it's the Institute announcing thatthis is a priority, we want to do, you
know, this specialized, uh, mechanism,these special types of grants or
this special, uh, area of research.
And usually all of the applicationsin response to the RFA are reviewed
(22:13):
together and compared to one another.
Some of those announcements,they go through CSR and they'll
be percentiled, but usually withRFAs, they're not percentiled.
You just get a priority scoreand a summary statement.
Lauren Ullrich (22:26):
Right.
So, for example, the F31 is a PA andit's a parent announcement and they
all come in, um, sort of together andthen they're assigned to different CSR
study sections depending on the topic.
Um, whereas we have an NINDS-specific F32,that's a PAR because it has special review
(22:49):
criteria, and that's reviewed in-houseat NINDS and they're reviewed together.
And then we have the D-SPANor the F99/K00, which is
an NIH blueprint program.
And that's an RFA because it has aset aside budget and very specific
scope and specific review criteria.
Um, and so the most important thing Ithink is to read the FOA and see what it
(23:11):
says and not to get distracted by what allthese little administrative things mean.
But it can be helpful Ithink to, to know what these
different letters are signaling.
Michelle Jones-London (23:24):
And especially where it's reviewed.
So, for example, it's good to knowthat for the NINDS, um, the Ks, all
of the Ks are reviewed by a reviewoffice here at the NINDS and so you
don't have to bother about submittinga cover letter on, you know, what
study section should this go to?
(23:45):
It's really already been decided.
Glen Nuckolls (23:48):
So Michelle, if I can add a point to that.
Uh, so in I think most--I assume itswith the Ks, too, there's form G600,
it's an optional form in the applicationpackage and it's the PHS assignment form.
And you know, that's where normallyan investigator can request a
(24:09):
specific study section and Institute.
Those things I don't think areactually all that important.
But what I think really is importantis on that form you should describe
the appropriate expertise for thereviewers for your application.
You don't name anybody unless youwant to declare somebody that would
be in conflict, but if you describein as much detail as you want, what's
(24:33):
the appropriate expertise, it helpsin some cases get it to the right
study section and it really helps thereview officer get the application
into the hands of the right reviewers.
Mic (24:44):
That's a great point, Glen.
And I think we can all tell that youused to be a scientific review officer.
All (24:48):
[Laughter]
Lauren Ul (24:51):
All right, so keeping on this FOA topic, many applicants don't
really know how to approach the FOA.
They just see this wall of text.
It seems very intimidating.
Um, can you give anyon how to read the FOA?
What are the important parts to,to really pay attention to and are
(25:11):
there any other tips that you have?
Francesca Bosset (25:14):
So I would say the very first thing to look if
the title, per se, is of interest,is to look at the eligibility.
Because if you are not eligible,there is no point wasting your
time and reading all the rest.
If you determine that you are eligible,then I would start with the background
(25:35):
information, areas of interest,areas that instead, should not be
included or are excluded from the FOA.
And also pay close attention to the reviewcriteria because those are things that
the reviewers will specifically evaluate.
(25:55):
So you want to make sure thatyou have all those points well
covered in your application.
Shai Sil (26:02):
That's very well said.
Francesca, I just want to add one thing.
One of the very first things to lookat is the dates [laughter] because
if the dates have passed, then thereis no point in reading further.
Lauren Ullrich (26:12):
Good point.
So finally, do you have any suggestionsfor where applicants can find resources to
help them put their application together?
Francesca Bos (26:25):
Well, our website has a lot of information about different
funding opportunity announcements and uh,and also my suggestion would actually to,
to talk with your mentor, to talk with theother colleagues that have been successful
and uh, really, uh, try to get a mentoringteam that is not just a simply someone
(26:48):
who is very familiar with your area ofscience, but also someone who is very
successful in navigating the grant systemthat can give you very precious advice.
And of course you can alwaysreach out to program staff
and, uh, we are here to help.
But uh, you know, we, uh, it would bemuch more efficient and effective if you
(27:10):
already have done some of the homework.
Michelle Jones-London (27:13):
Yes.
It makes a more informed conversation.
In our closing of this podcast, whatwould be your advice for trainees?
If you could say one sentence,let's go around starting with Shai.
What's your life hackfor a grant submission.
Shai Silberberg (27:33):
Okay.
So my, my recommendation would be thatevery time you submit a grant application
or a manuscript, at least three peopleare forming an opinion about you.
So one needs to put one best footforward, not to say, okay, I'll
let's put it in, I'll see whatcomments I get and then I'll revise.
(27:55):
The best you can possibly do becauseother people are forming opinions.
Francesca Bossetti (28:01):
So if I can follow up on that, I totally agree.
But even if you put your best footforward there is a high chance that
you may not get a fundable score.
And my suggestion is not to give up.
And also that the summary statement withthe critique is your best friend and
you don't have to take it personally.
(28:22):
I know it's hard, when you get it, notto take it personally, but just try to
detach you from, from that applicationand see why the reviewers formed
that opinion and what can you do tomake sure that doesn't happen again.
Michelle Jones-London (28:38):
Great.
Glen Nu (28:40):
So I think for trainees and and new investigators, early stage
investigators, um, you know, what you'redoing at that point in your career
is you're really trying to establisha unique scientific niche and you're
developing kind of your own brand.
Putting your best foot forward certainlycontributes to people thinking the
(29:00):
best of you and know that the qualityof your product comes through.
But I think it's also important, youknow, when you're developing your
scientific niche that it really issomething that you're excited about.
And too often, you know, I thinkpeople think that they have to
put together an application that'scompletely based on the, the training
that they had or something like that.
(29:21):
And if it's not really what they'reexcited about doing, I think that
comes through in an application.
So pick what you think isthe most important science
that you can think to do.
Sometimes you have to go get additionalpeople to help you with that.
You know, still stuff you have tolearn about it, but you know, uh,
this is what you'll be workingon for the rest of your career.
Michelle Jones-London (29:42):
And Lauren, what would you say?
Laur (29:45):
I would say take advantage of all of the resources available,
especially in the training space.
A lot of universities now have programsthey have like write your K courses.
Reach out to your network andsee if other people have applied
(30:05):
or to find out about new awards.
Just really not trying to do itall by yourself and leaning on that
network because they're going to bethere for the rest of your career
and nobody does science alone.
Michelle?
Michelle Jone (30:22):
I guess my advice would be to, you know, to sum up what
you all said, is to allow yourself timeto do all of these things and to be
thoughtful and intentional about it.
And also realize that the grant atthe end, the end of the day, it's
not necessarily about the money.
It feels like that, but itteaches you a lot about, you know,
(30:46):
your long and short term goals.
And so it's a valuable exercise togo through, even if at the end of the
day you don't end up with the award.
I mean, everyone wants that.
But even if you don't, I promiseyou, it will help you focus your
passion about the science that you'reinterested in and it will also force
(31:06):
you, especially for these training andcareer development plans to have some
conversations with your mentor or mentorteam that maybe you wouldn't otherwise.
Um, so I think there's a value in that.
Lauren Ullrich (31:18):
Okay, well that's all we have time for
today on"Building Up The Nerve".
So thank you so much toour guests this week.
And also thank you to programdirector, Dr. Bob Riddle for our
theme song and music and we'll seeyou next time when we tackle the
process of preparing the application.
You can find past episodes of thispodcast and many more grant application
(31:38):
resources on the web at ninds.nih.gov
Michelle Jones-Lo (31:42):
Email us with questions at NINDSNervePod@nih.gov and
make sure you subscribe to"BuildingUp the Nerve" on Apple Podcasts
or wherever you get your podcastsso you don't miss an episode.
See you next time.
Popular Podcasts
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.
Hey Jonas!
Hey Jonas! The official Jonas Brothers podcast. Hosted by Kevin, Joe, and Nick Jonas. It’s the Jonas Brothers you know... musicians, actors, and well, yes, brothers. Now, they’re sharing another side of themselves in the playful, intimate, and irreverent way only they can. Spend time with the Jonas Brothers here and stay a little bit longer for deep conversations like never before.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by Audiochuck Media Company.