November 29, 2019 • 33 mins
Get tips for putting together your application from Drs. Steve Korn and Tish Weigand of the Training Office and Dr. Michelle Jones-London of the OPEN Office.
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!
This episode has been edited since its original publication.
Transcript: http://ninds.buzzsprout.com/558574/2179406-episode-4-preparing-the-application
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 trainings
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.
(00:22):
Hi, I'm Lauren Ullrich, scientificprogram manager at NINDS.
Marguerite M (00:25):
And I'm Marguerite Matthews, a health program specialist
at NINDS and we're your hosts today.
Laure (00:32):
So last week we discussed initiating your research idea, how to read
a funding opportunity announcement andhow to chat with your program official.
Today we're going to talk aboutthe next logical step, actually
preparing your fellowship orcareer development application.
We'll go through do's and don'tsand ways of thinking about your
application that will help youestablish a framework for success.
So Marguerite, did youapply for an F31 or an F32?
(00:54):
What was it like?
Marguerite (00:55):
I did not apply for an F31, but I did prepare an application
as part of my comprehensive exam.
So I prepared the application and Ipresented it to a committee, but I
did not actually end up submitting it.
What about you?
Lauren (01:08):
I actually submitted an F31, I think three times--never got it.
And mostly what I remember from theprocess was being overwhelmed by how
much I had to prepare, um, and trying tofigure out, you know, what exactly had
to go in each part of the application.
So hopefully today we candemystify that process a little
(01:34):
bit.
Marguerite Matthews (01:35):
All right.
So today we are going to talk to threepeople at NINDS who have collectively
seen thousands of training and careerdevelopment award applications go
through review and they're going to giveus their perspectives on the process.
So joining us are Dr SteveKorn, the director of training
and workforce development.
Dr Letitia Weigand, the scientificprogram officer in the training
(01:56):
office and Dr. Michelle Jones-London,chief of the office of programs to
Enhance the Neuroscience Workforce.
Steve Korn (02:04):
So I'm Steve Korn, the director of training--in
the office of training andworkforce development at NINDS.
We handle mechanisms for pre docs andpostdocs and clinicians and institutional
grants that are designed to trainpre docs and postdocs and clinicians.
And then we have a lot ofresearch education programs
(02:25):
that are very specialized, toaccomplish a training goal.
I have been here since 2006.
Before that I was on the facultyat the University of Connecticut.
I was an ion channel biophysicistdoing all the usual things that
faculty do, research, teaching,getting grants, writing papers,
mentoring, all that sort of stuff.
(02:45):
Wow, one of my hobbies or passionsoutside of work besides my dog, I
guess I spend most of my time biking,doing some long bike trips, some
easy bike trips, that sort of thing.
Tish Weiga (02:55):
Hi I'm Tish Weigand, I am also in the office of training
and workforce development at NINDS.
So, along with Steve, I helpto manage the portfolio of the
training, awards for NINDS.
I'm specifically very heavily involvedin managing the institutional T32
programs, if that's a familiar mechanism.
As well as the loanrepayment program for NINDS.
(03:18):
Um, I've been here forabout six years now.
And prior to that I did apostdoctoral fellowship at
George Washington University.
Um, and then in terms of how, what Ido outside of work, my biggest passion
of course is my daughter, my family,but I spend lots of time outdoors.
So camping, hiking, trailrunning, stuff like that.
Michelle Jones-London (03:36):
So I guess that leaves me.
So I'm Michelle Jones-London.
I'm the chief of the Office of Programsto Enhance the Neuroscience Workforce.
We call it OPEN and open reallycaptures what we're trying to do.
We're trying to openaccess and opportunities.
And so the mechanisms that I have,they go all the way from, in some
cases, high school and Laurenoversees that program, high school
(04:00):
all the way up to junior faculty.
So we really cover the whole landscapefor individual and institutional programs.
Um, how long have I worked here?
Steve and I came probablyabout a week apart.
Steve Korn (04:15):
Wow did we really I don't remember that?
Michelle Jones-London (04:15):
Yeah.
Which is really funny.
And before I started here, I was apostdoc at Penn where I was looking
at animal models of depression.
One of my hobbies and passionsoutside of work, very similar
to Tish, I have a 10 year olddaughter who works me pretty hard.
But when I do have time readingis something that I enjoy
(04:39):
and I'm part of a book club.
Lauren Ullrich (04:41):
All right.
Thank you guys for being here.
We want to just start withsort of the big picture.
So what is the point of a fellowshipor career development award?
What are the benefits for applying forone besides the obvious of getting money?
Steve Korn (04:59):
I guess I'll start.
I think it's hard to lumpall those things together.
The--obviously the point of all thetraining mechanisms to prepare people to
be good scientists either as independentscientists or as collaborative scientists.
Um, and that may be in academia,that could be in industry or that
could be using their scientifictraining somewhere else.
(05:19):
But the goal of training isto create good scientists.
Really in my view, I think all of thesemechanisms have different purposes.
For example, for a pre docfellowship, in fact, the least
important part of it is the funding.
Any graduate student should have asource of funding throughout their
graduate career that is guaranteed.
(05:39):
And so the money's not reallydirectly going to them.
To me, there are two bigvalues of a pre doc fellowship.
One is when you have to write downyour ideas, you find out that some
of your ideas don't make sense.
And to be able to write coherently andconvincingly to get somebody to give
you money for your ideas is not easy.
(06:02):
And you find that outonly when you write it.
The other thing that I actually thinkis, is kind of an interesting benefit is
that you often don't get your applicationand learn, maybe you can speak to that.
Um, you don't get your award.
And I think it's hugely important tobe able to face rejection and get back
(06:22):
on your feet and keep moving forward.
And if you can't do that, then scienceis the wrong place for you because
science is a place where you get papersrejected and you get grant applications
rejected and, and you, it's part ofthe game and you need to be able to
take the critiques and respond to thecritiques, get the emotion out of it,
(06:42):
and objectively look at what's written.
And it improves your application.
And it's, reviewers arealmost always right.
You just don't like to see it.
That's about you.
Michelle Jones-London (06:52):
I agree with everything you said.
I think another thing that it really doesis I think as scientists, obviously what
excites us is the doing, is the research.
And so sometimes it can be veryhard to set aside that time to
just--to think and also to write.
And so when you're preparing one of theseapplications, those are two things that
(07:16):
you have to stop the doing and reallyset aside time to talk with your mentor
to have conversations that maybe younever thought about having, but that this
application requires you have in termsof timelines, in terms of milestones.
Um, especially for some ofour career development awards.
(07:38):
There's also conversationsabout institutional commitment.
So it really makes some of theassumptions that are going on.
Especially if you don't have anindividual development plan, it
makes them more concrete and written.
It also helps you to seeas a trainee maybe how much
support you have around you.
(07:58):
I often hear that when peopleare going through the process of
developing an application and youknow, they're asking for feedback on
the application, they realize, youknow, what a support network, um, they
actually have that, that's out there.
So that's a positive.
And then if you don't have that as you'redeveloping it, it gives you an opportunity
(08:20):
to have a reason to go and ask someoneto perhaps join your mentoring team.
So there's a lot of otherthings besides the dollars.
Steve (08:30):
And I think just to keep going with that theme, it forces clarity
of thought and clarity of planning.
Um, as an example, I just spoketo somebody yesterday about
a career development award.
They got their summary statementback and the reviewers were
in complete disagreement.
The person didn't know how to respondbecause half the reviewers loved A and
(08:53):
half the reviewers hated A and halfthe reviewers loved B and half the
reviewers hated B and on and on and on.
Throughout the summary statement.
And in having the conversation, it becameclear that the reviewers who didn't like
things, didn't like them because theydidn't understand what was being proposed
because of the way it was written.
(09:14):
And in fact, neither set ofreviewers was right or wrong.
There was a lack of clarity in the writingthat wasn't really recognized until we
had a conversation about "what do youmean to say and what did you actually
write?" And so it really to me, you know,people think of grants as an adversarial
system where they're trying to get moneyand people are trying to prevent you from
(09:36):
getting money or something like that.
But really all reviewers want is toknow that you have thought clearly about
what you're doing both scientificallyand in your career development plans.
And also of course that you havesomething important that you're doing
and that you're going to do it well.
Michelle Jones-London (09:53):
Yeah.
And I think it's never a waste of time.
You often hear that people will say, well,my advisor has enough funding, I shouldn't
waste my time putting this together.
It really is the benefit thatit confers to the trainee.
It is worth the time and the energy toonce again to sit down and think about
(10:13):
your research goals, your traininggoals, and to have your mentor explicitly
write out what is their commitmentto you, what is their support to you
and what are your long term visions?
Because otherwise you may not, you may,you may have a bunch of assumptions
and never see it in black and white.
Marguerite Matthew (10:32):
And in order to do that, um, we often recommend
doing a gap analysis approach.
So, Michelle, can you talk a little bitmore about what that means as it relates
to people thinking about putting theirapplication together and addressing all
of these points that you all just made?
Michelle Jones-London (10:47):
Yeah.
It's you and your mentor taking a stepback and looking at the strengths and
the weaknesses and looking for areasthat when we talk about the gap, um,
things that are remaining even in termsof timeline for the project, but also
in terms of career development, orprofessional development for you, the
(11:09):
applicant, um, if you're putting certainresearch goals or specific aims in the
project, does that match up with thetraining goals that you have or are the
courses that you need to take are thedevelopment of techniques that you need.
So taking a step back and saying whatneeds to be done, what is the training?
(11:32):
Um, and I know Steve willtalk a lot about this.
This is really something that we harpon a lot in terms of the training
mechanisms, is that you're actuallytalking about what training will occur.
Once again, it's not justabout the dollars of the, the
research, but the training.
Steve Korn (11:51):
And in terms of the application, reviewers want to know what
is it that you already know, what has yourtraining been and what do you need that
you don't have to get where you're going?
And so that's why we talk aboutit in terms of a gap discussion.
And it should be explicitly like thatand just lay it out for the reviewers.
(12:13):
Here's what I'm good at andhere's what I need to know.
And don't worry about weaknesses.
You know, it's not, it's not weaknesses,it's what you don't know and nobody
expects you to know what you don't know.
What reviewers will object to is ifyou don't recognize that you need
something and you're not proposing toget it, then it makes it sound like
(12:35):
you don't know what you're doing.
And that's what reviewers care aboutis that you know what you're doing.
Tish Weigand (12:40):
Yeah, and I'd, I'd add too, I'm just going to study
sections and listening in on reviews.
A lot of times a comment that willcome through as reviewers will say,
well, this is a generic training plan.
Um, and I think as Michelle alludedto this, this application isn't just
about the research, but it's aboutyour career development and your plans
for getting where you're trying to go.
Um, so a generic plan would be someonesaying, well, I'm going to do my
(13:01):
research, but then I'll, you know,I'll go to journal club and I'll go to
seminar and I'll go to some conferencesand maybe present some posters.
But that's not really apersonalized training plan.
It should be not generic.
It should be personalized.
It should be, you know, like we'vebeen talking about looking at what
you need to get where you're tryingto go and coming up with a plan in
writing it down for how you're goingto get those, those, those needs met.
Steve Korn (13:23):
And I just, I just wanted to get one word in there.
A specific word that just came tomy mind while we're having this
discussion is that word overambitious.
That is probably the most commoncritique and it's misinterpreted
by lots of applicants.
Everybody wants you to be ambitious.
Nobody minds you being ambitious.
The what the word means is thatyou are proposing way too much work
(13:47):
for the amount of time you've got.
And what that's an indication ofis that you don't understand how
much time everything is going totake, which means you don't really
understand what you're doing.
And again, it all comes back toreviewers want to know that you
know where you're trying to get toand how you're going to get there.
(14:08):
And so, you know, nobody minds him.
Michelle Jones-London (14:11):
Yeah, no.
And that, and especially in thatboth statements match, right?
That what you're saying and whatyour mentor is saying is aligned.
One of the kiss of deaths is,you know, a comment of, you know,
did they even talk to each other?
Did the mentor read this?
Um, so having that, that awarenessand that conversation, that, that gap
(14:35):
analysis is knowing you internally,talking about your goals and your
path, but also having that conversationwith the mentor so that the whole
application reads like a coherent story.
Lauren Ullrich (14:48):
So what about things that you know, might
actually be weaknesses either inthe situation or past productivity?
So let's say I have a junior mentorthat doesn't have his R01 yet.
Or, um, I had a child and so I,I didn't, um, publish as much
as I wanted to in my postdoc.
So are you saying that I shouldreally put those things upfront and or
(15:13):
should I try to mitigate them somehow?
Michelle Jones-London (15:16):
Yeah, I think you do both, right?
You put them up front and then you alsotalk about the things that you're going
to do to mitigate the concerns, right?
We often talk about, you know, peopletrying to hide the elephant in the room.
Um, if you have a biosketch that has, hasgaps or if you're showing productivity
(15:37):
that seems a little less than itshould be given your, your number of
years, then you want to address that.
And there's two differentways you can do that.
There's explicit language for thebiosketch that says in that personal
statement, you can talk about, um,areas where there might be reasons
for less than expected productivity.
(15:59):
You can do that there.
I mean, you don't spend a lot of timeon it, you know, make a lot of excuses.
You just put out the facts.
The other way that I've seenpeople do this very well is having
the mentors talk about that.
To say, um, I, I like sort of Steve'swording in terms of, you know, we're
using the word weakness, but maybe youdon't even call it that, but you just
call it explaining why, why life happened.
(16:22):
And so the mentor could say, eventhough you know, this applicant
had to take off our, my menteehad to take off for half a year.
They still came back and were, wereamazingly productive and went on to
contribute to a specific aim in the R01.
(16:42):
So they're, they're stating thefacts about what happened, why the
timeline looks like it does, but stillreiterating the fact that you have the
potential to be a great researcher.
Steve Korn (16:54):
And just to, just to amplify on that a little bit,
and I agree with everything.
You don't want to make excuses andyou don't want to be defensive.
You want to state the facts as Michellesaid, and, and you stayed at all in
the positive, you know, you were, andthen maybe you took time off or you
did whatever and you just state it.
Here are the facts.
And the reviewers can interpret thefacts as they'll interpret them and, and
(17:19):
they're not going to expect you to havebeen productive when you weren't working.
Michelle Jone (17:22):
Yeah, I mean, and I think reviewers, especially in this
day and age, they recognize the factthat, um, those very things and those
attributes make you more resilient.
Um, and really show that youhave a commitment to this.
There are humans who are reviewersand they know life life happens.
What comes in the way sometimes iswhen people make up their own stories
(17:45):
about why there are gaps or why thistimeline looks a little weird, they'll,
they'll start to make stuff up andyou don't want to have them do that.
You want to take control of your story.
And I think another thing thatLauren brought up that I want to get back
to is you talked about a junior mentor.
We absolutely encourage people,trainees to work with mentors that
(18:08):
don't have a lot of training experience,but it is absolutely required that
you have a real, a more senior orestablished mentor with training
experience in your program for you.
And it has to be real, not justname somebody who's famous.
Um, reviewers can read through,their reviewers, can read through
(18:29):
everything that you've written.
It's hard for people to believethat they can pick out the real
from the imaginary and--but they do.
And there's a good reason.
Sometimes people wonder, well,why I'm a perfectly good mentor
even though I have no experience.
And that may be true.
You may be a junior mentor, may bethe best mentor on the planet, there's
just no track record to prove it.
(18:51):
And there are lots of issues thatcome up for junior faculty that
can interfere with good mentorshipeven if they're wonderful people.
And so you need to make sure youjust have an experienced voice on
there too, to guide things if theygo off the rails a little bit.
Marguerite Matthe (19:09):
So mentorship is clearly a very important
component of this application.
How much should a applicant beworking with their mentor on the
application itself in terms ofwriting it or putting it together?
Tish Weig (19:20):
So I mean, I think at every step of the way in the process
you should be talking to your mentoron, you know, because certainly as
Michelle was seeing earlier on, youknow, one important component of this
application is that the mentor him orherself has to write a statement about
mentorship and the plan for guiding youthrough the, the time that you'll be
spending in the lab doing the project.
(19:41):
So you want to be talking with themfrequently and running things by them
and having them read drafts of stuffthat you've written as you go through
the process and working together,formulating this plan for that's gonna
you know, propel you forward with success.
Not only because this, you know, is goingto be important for your relationship
with your mentor and for your careersuccess, but also because what you're
going to put down on the paper and inthe actual application needs to match up
(20:03):
and it needs to reflect throughout theapplication that you've been talking to
the mentor and that the mentor has readand given input and is on the same page
with you in terms of what your plans are.
So I think it's critical to be engagingwith your mentor or mentors, right?
Every step of the way and not justthe primary mentor on the project, but
co-mentors people that, you know, othercollaborators, folks who've written these
(20:26):
applications before, people who really,you know, are going to give a critical
eye and maybe aren't your best friendsin your department and people that are
going to look at what you did, what youare presenting sort of with skepticism.
Maybe those are the, probably some of thebest people to get feedback from because
they're going to give you, give you reallycritical, um, feedback that that could
help you craft a better application.
(20:47):
So, certainly talking to mentorsand, and folks with experience and
other folks in the department, um,and getting their input on what,
what you're putting together I thinkis critical all, all throughout.
Steve (20:57):
And you know, mentorship is a huge discussion, um, that we
can't possibly do in this one session.
Tish Weigand (21:03):
That's an episode in and off itself.
Steve Korn (21:04):
But I guess I want to make another point.
Getting back to the application isyour mentor should be writing the
mentor statement and you can givethe mentor bullet points that say,
would you please hit these topics?
But think about it, if your mentor willnot spend the time to write a statement
(21:24):
on your behalf to bring in money, howgood a mentor is that and how much is
that person going to be there for you?
And the other part of it is there aresome mentors who are very good mentors
that don't understand the importanceof their statement and they think to
themselves, "Well, I'm a good mentorand everybody knows it. And so I'm just
going to say, yeah, I'll do a greatjob." But reviewers want to hear what
(21:47):
is the mentor specific plan for you?
And you know, especially a mentorwith a big lab, they may give more
attention to one person than another.
And the reviewers want to know thatthis person is paying attention to you
and knows exactly what you need andhow they're going to help you get it.
Michelle Jones-London (22:05):
Yeah, and I'll touch on what Tish
said about mentor or mentors.
I think the thing that we've seena lot of now is people having
a sense of more mentor teams.
Um, but once again it should be real.
Um, you don't want to just collect sort ofyour all star names and put them on there.
(22:28):
There should be a reason, a purpose,a responsibility and a frequency that
you're meeting with these other mentors.
But having, you know, perhaps morethan one mentor is beneficial to you.
Um, when it comes time for yourtransition or as you're looking for
your, your next steps in your careers,it just increases your networks.
(22:50):
It increases the likelihood that you'llhave more people out there who are
really invested in you as a trainee.
So that's a good ideato think about as well.
Steve Korn (23:01):
And, and just again, continuing that line of you only need
the mentors you need, not more thanyou need and not less than you need.
There's not the right number of mentors.
And we can say that aboutabsolutely everything in the grant.
There's not the right amount of data.
Lauren Ullr (23:18):
Well that was going to be my next question, Steve.
How many papers do I need?
Steve Korn (23:22):
You need exactly the right amount, Lauren.
But, but back to the mentor, you knowthe, you may only need one mentor who can
do everything or you may need multiplementors to handle different roles.
And I guess I would just say alsoeven if you have just one mentor or
you have a couple of mentors, I wouldrecommend having a real committee
(23:44):
that meets with you and your mentormaybe a couple of times a year.
And just to go over what you'vedone and where you're headed,
what you need to do to finish up.
And you need people on the committeethat will disagree with your mentor.
It's not, that should not be a rubberstamp committee that's of no value to you.
Michelle Jones-London (24:01):
Exactly.
And we've even been seeingthat for postdocs now.
That's something very common for graduateschool, these types of committees.
But we've seen this successfully done withpostdocs and even junior faculty as well.
It's really, it's really nice to havethose check-ins with people that don't
have the same um, conflict of interest.
Mar (24:22):
That's the real dream team.
People who are gonna elevateyou and encourage you to do,
to do more and to do better.
Michelle Jo (24:28):
Exactly, Marguerite
Lauren Ullrich (24:30):
Yeah.
So I mean, I think one of thethings that we hear a lot from
applicants are they're asking forsome kind of secret formula, right?
Like there is some right answer ofnumber of mentors, number of papers,
how many aims should I have and how doyou, how do you answer those questions?
Michelle Jones-London (24:49):
The Goldilocks thought of a grant.
There is just really, it really when wetalked about that gap analysis, right.
We talked a lot about--specific to you.
Your, career goals, your area ofscience, what you're proposing.
They're really, it's, it's the,right, what did you say, Steve?
(25:12):
The right number of papers is the rightnumber of papers for that field, for
that project, for where you are at yourstage of career; someone in their third
year versus someone in their fifth year.
Obviously you would have adifferent expectation maybe, but
it also depends on the field.
If you're doing something where theresearch is a fast turnaround for
outcomes, people are going to look more.
(25:34):
If there's something that maybe time andinvestment of doing the research, um,
the specific aims, it just takes longer.
Um, people will ask us, well, should itbe one big paper in Neuron or Cell or
should I publish a bunch of little papers.
We, we can't tell you that answer.
(25:57):
Um, and we can tell you that we'vefunded people with the one name
journals, but we've also funded peoplethat had highly significant projects
and, and had great, um, productivityin maybe not the one name journals.
So it really is about putting togetherthe most competitive application
(26:18):
you can put together for yourresearch with a supportive mentor
and with a plan that makes sense.
Steve (26:26):
Yeah, I think you really need to keep that in mind that you
know, it seems kind of silly tosay it, but I'm going to say it.
Reviewers are smart people andthey recognize excellent work
and they know what's appropriate.
Again, the way Michelle said it interms of time and amount and all of that
stuff, but we've given very prestigiousgrants to somebody with one paper that
(26:50):
a reviewer says, "This is only onepaper, but it turned the whole field
around" and other people can have 10so- so papers and the reviewers will
sit there and say,"Yeah, there are 10papers, but they're not really, there's
not much in them." And so there isno answer to any of those questions.
Marguerite Matthe (27:11):
Well, I think this has been a great overview of
how to approach fellowship and careerdevelopment award applications.
Thank you all for sharingyour wisdom with us today.
Can each of you share one last piece ofparting advice for our future applicants?
Michelle Jones (27:26):
Yeah, I mean the biggest thing in terms of getting a grant,
you can't get it unless you submit it.
You could worry about thestatistics or the right number
or all of these other things.
But it really is, you know,this is the business of science.
And as a trainee, I think therewe talked about in the very early
(27:48):
parts of this, the benefit to doingand writing an application that
has nothing to do with the money.
And so I would say make sureyou, you do it, it's worth it.
The other thing that Iwould say is to contact us.
We really don't want you out thereguessing, have a conversation with us
(28:09):
and hopefully this podcast has allowedyou to see that we aren't too bad.
Um, we're not the monsters that,that maybe you thought we were.
Marguerite Matth (28:20):
or aren't you?
[laughter]
Steve Korn (28:22):
They just have to take your word for that.
Yeah, I guess we often get asked fortemplates of successful applications.
There's different mindsets as towhether that's worthwhile or not.
I'm very much against itbecause of what Michelle said.
It's about you and your project andyou as an applicant and when you get
(28:43):
a template of somebody else's grant,that's the tendency is to copy it.
And not, not word for word obviously,but sort of the format and the
structure and it won't fit you.
And so reviewers are looking to knowthat you're doing something important
and you know you need to do andthat you have a plan for how to do
it and that you have a good mentor.
Tish (29:05):
So I would say the advice that I often give people who are preparing
applications is that even though yourapplication is going to sort of be in
the hands of the reviewers and sortof at their mercy, so to speak, you're
really in a pretty powerful position.
But you have the opportunity to sitdown and write on paper and present
yourself, your research, the environmentthat you're in and, and how that all
(29:26):
is going to lead to your success.
And so I always tell people it's importantto remember that you have control of
the narrative here and you can, you havecontrol of the story that you get to tell.
So make sure that you sort of spoonfeedthe reviewers the details that you
want them to see and you make thenarrative something that you want
them to, to read and understand.
Don't leave room for questions because thesort of kiss of death is when you know,
(29:49):
reviewers don't quite understand somethingor there's not quite enough detail where,
or you haven't addressed a particularweakness or issue in your application.
And then they sit around thetable and they start saying,
well what does this mean?
Or what do you think about that?
Or maybe this or maybe that ifyou leave space for them to ask
questions, it usually doesn'tturn out well for your score.
So I would say just be empoweredand control the narrative and, and
(30:12):
present yourself in the best possibleway, in the clearest possible way
that you can in your application.
St (30:17):
And if I get to say one more thing before Marguerite shuts me off
Lauren Ullrich (30:20):
I guess you do then, Steve [laughter]
Steve (30:23):
I saw her looking at me.
Also, you have to keep in mind that ifyou do get a critical critique and not
a great score, it is not about you.
It is not a statement about you.
Michelle Jones-London (30:37):
Exactly.
Steve K (30:37):
It is a statement about what was written in that application.
You should not take it personally.
And as frustrated and angry anddepressed and whatever else you might
be, you should not take it personally.
It is not a statement aboutyour worth in science.
It's a statement about whatyou wrote in that application.
Michelle Jones-London (30:58):
Yup.
You get a three day pity party andthen you come back and you revise.
Marguerite Ma (31:03):
All right Lauren, we'll you've done this three times.
Surely you have some advice.
Lauren Ullrich (31:08):
Um, I guess just following up on what Tish said is:
it really is a story that you'retelling the reviewers and to make
sure that every single piece of theapplication tells the same story and
don't leave opportunities on the table.
So, um, in your biosketchyou have a chance to put a
personal statement in there.
You should take advantage of thatopportunity and use that as a way to
(31:33):
shape how the reviewers are going tosee you by showing how you see yourself.
But it's very important that whateveryou write in there as you know, your
your ultimate career goal, that has tomatch what your mentor writes as what
they see as your ultimate career goal.
Because reviewers will pickup on those discrepancies.
Um, and I think one way to ensure thatyou're doing this is to give it to
(31:58):
people that are not involved in yourresearch, because reviewers will be
familiar with your topic more or lessdepending on what you're applying for
and what study section, but they don'tknow what's happening in your lab.
And you want to make sure that like Stevesaid, that you've actually communicated
your value, your story, your research,why it's exciting, why it's important.
(32:21):
And it's really hard tosee that when you're in it.
Marguerite, what about you?
Marguerite (32:25):
I would just expand on what you just said and also have your
writers of your letters of recommendationalso amplify what you have said about
your goals and your plans for thefuture and what your mentor has said.
They should know about that.
And the best way to do that isto give them an outline, talk
(32:45):
about the things that you want todo, even give them your personal
statement, your candidate statement.
They should be able to seethat, your biosketch, give them
everything they need to know.
But also have a conversation with themto make sure that they get what it is
that you want to showcase about yourself.
And hopefully they arealso in agreeance with you.
And if they are not a person whocan do that, you should find someone
(33:09):
else who can speak to those things.
Lauren (33:13):
Well, that's all we have time for today on Building Up the Nerve.
Thank you to our guests thisweek for sharing their expertise.
And also thank you to program directorof Bob Riddle for our theme song and
music, and we'll see you next timewhen we tackle what happens after you
hit submit on that grant application.
You can find past episodes of thispodcast and many more grant application
resources on the web at ninds.nih.gov.
Marguerite Matthe (33:35):
You can email us questions nindsnervepod@nih.gov.
Make sure you subscribe to the podcaston Apple podcasts or your favorite
podcast app so you don't miss an episode.
We'll see you next time.
Welcome to the National Institute of Neurological Disorders
and Stroke's Building Up the Nerve,a podcast for neuroscience trainings
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.
(00:22):
Hi, I'm Lauren Ullrich, scientificprogram manager at NINDS.
Marguerite M (00:25):
And I'm Marguerite Matthews, a health program specialist
at NINDS and we're your hosts today.
Laure (00:32):
So last week we discussed initiating your research idea, how to read
a funding opportunity announcement andhow to chat with your program official.
Today we're going to talk aboutthe next logical step, actually
preparing your fellowship orcareer development application.
We'll go through do's and don'tsand ways of thinking about your
application that will help youestablish a framework for success.
So Marguerite, did youapply for an F31 or an F32?
(00:54):
What was it like?
Marguerite (00:55):
I did not apply for an F31, but I did prepare an application
as part of my comprehensive exam.
So I prepared the application and Ipresented it to a committee, but I
did not actually end up submitting it.
What about you?
Lauren (01:08):
I actually submitted an F31, I think three times--never got it.
And mostly what I remember from theprocess was being overwhelmed by how
much I had to prepare, um, and trying tofigure out, you know, what exactly had
to go in each part of the application.
So hopefully today we candemystify that process a little
(01:34):
bit.
Marguerite Matthews (01:35):
All right.
So today we are going to talk to threepeople at NINDS who have collectively
seen thousands of training and careerdevelopment award applications go
through review and they're going to giveus their perspectives on the process.
So joining us are Dr SteveKorn, the director of training
and workforce development.
Dr Letitia Weigand, the scientificprogram officer in the training
(01:56):
office and Dr. Michelle Jones-London,chief of the office of programs to
Enhance the Neuroscience Workforce.
Steve Korn (02:04):
So I'm Steve Korn, the director of training--in
the office of training andworkforce development at NINDS.
We handle mechanisms for pre docs andpostdocs and clinicians and institutional
grants that are designed to trainpre docs and postdocs and clinicians.
And then we have a lot ofresearch education programs
(02:25):
that are very specialized, toaccomplish a training goal.
I have been here since 2006.
Before that I was on the facultyat the University of Connecticut.
I was an ion channel biophysicistdoing all the usual things that
faculty do, research, teaching,getting grants, writing papers,
mentoring, all that sort of stuff.
(02:45):
Wow, one of my hobbies or passionsoutside of work besides my dog, I
guess I spend most of my time biking,doing some long bike trips, some
easy bike trips, that sort of thing.
Tish Weiga (02:55):
Hi I'm Tish Weigand, I am also in the office of training
and workforce development at NINDS.
So, along with Steve, I helpto manage the portfolio of the
training, awards for NINDS.
I'm specifically very heavily involvedin managing the institutional T32
programs, if that's a familiar mechanism.
As well as the loanrepayment program for NINDS.
(03:18):
Um, I've been here forabout six years now.
And prior to that I did apostdoctoral fellowship at
George Washington University.
Um, and then in terms of how, what Ido outside of work, my biggest passion
of course is my daughter, my family,but I spend lots of time outdoors.
So camping, hiking, trailrunning, stuff like that.
Michelle Jones-London (03:36):
So I guess that leaves me.
So I'm Michelle Jones-London.
I'm the chief of the Office of Programsto Enhance the Neuroscience Workforce.
We call it OPEN and open reallycaptures what we're trying to do.
We're trying to openaccess and opportunities.
And so the mechanisms that I have,they go all the way from, in some
cases, high school and Laurenoversees that program, high school
(04:00):
all the way up to junior faculty.
So we really cover the whole landscapefor individual and institutional programs.
Um, how long have I worked here?
Steve and I came probablyabout a week apart.
Steve Korn (04:15):
Wow did we really I don't remember that?
Michelle Jones-London (04:15):
Yeah.
Which is really funny.
And before I started here, I was apostdoc at Penn where I was looking
at animal models of depression.
One of my hobbies and passionsoutside of work, very similar
to Tish, I have a 10 year olddaughter who works me pretty hard.
But when I do have time readingis something that I enjoy
(04:39):
and I'm part of a book club.
Lauren Ullrich (04:41):
All right.
Thank you guys for being here.
We want to just start withsort of the big picture.
So what is the point of a fellowshipor career development award?
What are the benefits for applying forone besides the obvious of getting money?
Steve Korn (04:59):
I guess I'll start.
I think it's hard to lumpall those things together.
The--obviously the point of all thetraining mechanisms to prepare people to
be good scientists either as independentscientists or as collaborative scientists.
Um, and that may be in academia,that could be in industry or that
could be using their scientifictraining somewhere else.
(05:19):
But the goal of training isto create good scientists.
Really in my view, I think all of thesemechanisms have different purposes.
For example, for a pre docfellowship, in fact, the least
important part of it is the funding.
Any graduate student should have asource of funding throughout their
graduate career that is guaranteed.
(05:39):
And so the money's not reallydirectly going to them.
To me, there are two bigvalues of a pre doc fellowship.
One is when you have to write downyour ideas, you find out that some
of your ideas don't make sense.
And to be able to write coherently andconvincingly to get somebody to give
you money for your ideas is not easy.
(06:02):
And you find that outonly when you write it.
The other thing that I actually thinkis, is kind of an interesting benefit is
that you often don't get your applicationand learn, maybe you can speak to that.
Um, you don't get your award.
And I think it's hugely important tobe able to face rejection and get back
(06:22):
on your feet and keep moving forward.
And if you can't do that, then scienceis the wrong place for you because
science is a place where you get papersrejected and you get grant applications
rejected and, and you, it's part ofthe game and you need to be able to
take the critiques and respond to thecritiques, get the emotion out of it,
(06:42):
and objectively look at what's written.
And it improves your application.
And it's, reviewers arealmost always right.
You just don't like to see it.
That's about you.
Michelle Jones-London (06:52):
I agree with everything you said.
I think another thing that it really doesis I think as scientists, obviously what
excites us is the doing, is the research.
And so sometimes it can be veryhard to set aside that time to
just--to think and also to write.
And so when you're preparing one of theseapplications, those are two things that
(07:16):
you have to stop the doing and reallyset aside time to talk with your mentor
to have conversations that maybe younever thought about having, but that this
application requires you have in termsof timelines, in terms of milestones.
Um, especially for some ofour career development awards.
(07:38):
There's also conversationsabout institutional commitment.
So it really makes some of theassumptions that are going on.
Especially if you don't have anindividual development plan, it
makes them more concrete and written.
It also helps you to seeas a trainee maybe how much
support you have around you.
(07:58):
I often hear that when peopleare going through the process of
developing an application and youknow, they're asking for feedback on
the application, they realize, youknow, what a support network, um, they
actually have that, that's out there.
So that's a positive.
And then if you don't have that as you'redeveloping it, it gives you an opportunity
(08:20):
to have a reason to go and ask someoneto perhaps join your mentoring team.
So there's a lot of otherthings besides the dollars.
Steve (08:30):
And I think just to keep going with that theme, it forces clarity
of thought and clarity of planning.
Um, as an example, I just spoketo somebody yesterday about
a career development award.
They got their summary statementback and the reviewers were
in complete disagreement.
The person didn't know how to respondbecause half the reviewers loved A and
(08:53):
half the reviewers hated A and halfthe reviewers loved B and half the
reviewers hated B and on and on and on.
Throughout the summary statement.
And in having the conversation, it becameclear that the reviewers who didn't like
things, didn't like them because theydidn't understand what was being proposed
because of the way it was written.
(09:14):
And in fact, neither set ofreviewers was right or wrong.
There was a lack of clarity in the writingthat wasn't really recognized until we
had a conversation about "what do youmean to say and what did you actually
write?" And so it really to me, you know,people think of grants as an adversarial
system where they're trying to get moneyand people are trying to prevent you from
(09:36):
getting money or something like that.
But really all reviewers want is toknow that you have thought clearly about
what you're doing both scientificallyand in your career development plans.
And also of course that you havesomething important that you're doing
and that you're going to do it well.
Michelle Jones-London (09:53):
Yeah.
And I think it's never a waste of time.
You often hear that people will say, well,my advisor has enough funding, I shouldn't
waste my time putting this together.
It really is the benefit thatit confers to the trainee.
It is worth the time and the energy toonce again to sit down and think about
(10:13):
your research goals, your traininggoals, and to have your mentor explicitly
write out what is their commitmentto you, what is their support to you
and what are your long term visions?
Because otherwise you may not, you may,you may have a bunch of assumptions
and never see it in black and white.
Marguerite Matthew (10:32):
And in order to do that, um, we often recommend
doing a gap analysis approach.
So, Michelle, can you talk a little bitmore about what that means as it relates
to people thinking about putting theirapplication together and addressing all
of these points that you all just made?
Michelle Jones-London (10:47):
Yeah.
It's you and your mentor taking a stepback and looking at the strengths and
the weaknesses and looking for areasthat when we talk about the gap, um,
things that are remaining even in termsof timeline for the project, but also
in terms of career development, orprofessional development for you, the
(11:09):
applicant, um, if you're putting certainresearch goals or specific aims in the
project, does that match up with thetraining goals that you have or are the
courses that you need to take are thedevelopment of techniques that you need.
So taking a step back and saying whatneeds to be done, what is the training?
(11:32):
Um, and I know Steve willtalk a lot about this.
This is really something that we harpon a lot in terms of the training
mechanisms, is that you're actuallytalking about what training will occur.
Once again, it's not justabout the dollars of the, the
research, but the training.
Steve Korn (11:51):
And in terms of the application, reviewers want to know what
is it that you already know, what has yourtraining been and what do you need that
you don't have to get where you're going?
And so that's why we talk aboutit in terms of a gap discussion.
And it should be explicitly like thatand just lay it out for the reviewers.
(12:13):
Here's what I'm good at andhere's what I need to know.
And don't worry about weaknesses.
You know, it's not, it's not weaknesses,it's what you don't know and nobody
expects you to know what you don't know.
What reviewers will object to is ifyou don't recognize that you need
something and you're not proposing toget it, then it makes it sound like
(12:35):
you don't know what you're doing.
And that's what reviewers care aboutis that you know what you're doing.
Tish Weigand (12:40):
Yeah, and I'd, I'd add too, I'm just going to study
sections and listening in on reviews.
A lot of times a comment that willcome through as reviewers will say,
well, this is a generic training plan.
Um, and I think as Michelle alludedto this, this application isn't just
about the research, but it's aboutyour career development and your plans
for getting where you're trying to go.
Um, so a generic plan would be someonesaying, well, I'm going to do my
(13:01):
research, but then I'll, you know,I'll go to journal club and I'll go to
seminar and I'll go to some conferencesand maybe present some posters.
But that's not really apersonalized training plan.
It should be not generic.
It should be personalized.
It should be, you know, like we'vebeen talking about looking at what
you need to get where you're tryingto go and coming up with a plan in
writing it down for how you're goingto get those, those, those needs met.
Steve Korn (13:23):
And I just, I just wanted to get one word in there.
A specific word that just came tomy mind while we're having this
discussion is that word overambitious.
That is probably the most commoncritique and it's misinterpreted
by lots of applicants.
Everybody wants you to be ambitious.
Nobody minds you being ambitious.
The what the word means is thatyou are proposing way too much work
(13:47):
for the amount of time you've got.
And what that's an indication ofis that you don't understand how
much time everything is going totake, which means you don't really
understand what you're doing.
And again, it all comes back toreviewers want to know that you
know where you're trying to get toand how you're going to get there.
(14:08):
And so, you know, nobody minds him.
Michelle Jones-London (14:11):
Yeah, no.
And that, and especially in thatboth statements match, right?
That what you're saying and whatyour mentor is saying is aligned.
One of the kiss of deaths is,you know, a comment of, you know,
did they even talk to each other?
Did the mentor read this?
Um, so having that, that awarenessand that conversation, that, that gap
(14:35):
analysis is knowing you internally,talking about your goals and your
path, but also having that conversationwith the mentor so that the whole
application reads like a coherent story.
Lauren Ullrich (14:48):
So what about things that you know, might
actually be weaknesses either inthe situation or past productivity?
So let's say I have a junior mentorthat doesn't have his R01 yet.
Or, um, I had a child and so I,I didn't, um, publish as much
as I wanted to in my postdoc.
So are you saying that I shouldreally put those things upfront and or
(15:13):
should I try to mitigate them somehow?
Michelle Jones-London (15:16):
Yeah, I think you do both, right?
You put them up front and then you alsotalk about the things that you're going
to do to mitigate the concerns, right?
We often talk about, you know, peopletrying to hide the elephant in the room.
Um, if you have a biosketch that has, hasgaps or if you're showing productivity
(15:37):
that seems a little less than itshould be given your, your number of
years, then you want to address that.
And there's two differentways you can do that.
There's explicit language for thebiosketch that says in that personal
statement, you can talk about, um,areas where there might be reasons
for less than expected productivity.
(15:59):
You can do that there.
I mean, you don't spend a lot of timeon it, you know, make a lot of excuses.
You just put out the facts.
The other way that I've seenpeople do this very well is having
the mentors talk about that.
To say, um, I, I like sort of Steve'swording in terms of, you know, we're
using the word weakness, but maybe youdon't even call it that, but you just
call it explaining why, why life happened.
(16:22):
And so the mentor could say, eventhough you know, this applicant
had to take off our, my menteehad to take off for half a year.
They still came back and were, wereamazingly productive and went on to
contribute to a specific aim in the R01.
(16:42):
So they're, they're stating thefacts about what happened, why the
timeline looks like it does, but stillreiterating the fact that you have the
potential to be a great researcher.
Steve Korn (16:54):
And just to, just to amplify on that a little bit,
and I agree with everything.
You don't want to make excuses andyou don't want to be defensive.
You want to state the facts as Michellesaid, and, and you stayed at all in
the positive, you know, you were, andthen maybe you took time off or you
did whatever and you just state it.
Here are the facts.
And the reviewers can interpret thefacts as they'll interpret them and, and
(17:19):
they're not going to expect you to havebeen productive when you weren't working.
Michelle Jone (17:22):
Yeah, I mean, and I think reviewers, especially in this
day and age, they recognize the factthat, um, those very things and those
attributes make you more resilient.
Um, and really show that youhave a commitment to this.
There are humans who are reviewersand they know life life happens.
What comes in the way sometimes iswhen people make up their own stories
(17:45):
about why there are gaps or why thistimeline looks a little weird, they'll,
they'll start to make stuff up andyou don't want to have them do that.
You want to take control of your story.
And I think another thing thatLauren brought up that I want to get back
to is you talked about a junior mentor.
We absolutely encourage people,trainees to work with mentors that
(18:08):
don't have a lot of training experience,but it is absolutely required that
you have a real, a more senior orestablished mentor with training
experience in your program for you.
And it has to be real, not justname somebody who's famous.
Um, reviewers can read through,their reviewers, can read through
(18:29):
everything that you've written.
It's hard for people to believethat they can pick out the real
from the imaginary and--but they do.
And there's a good reason.
Sometimes people wonder, well,why I'm a perfectly good mentor
even though I have no experience.
And that may be true.
You may be a junior mentor, may bethe best mentor on the planet, there's
just no track record to prove it.
(18:51):
And there are lots of issues thatcome up for junior faculty that
can interfere with good mentorshipeven if they're wonderful people.
And so you need to make sure youjust have an experienced voice on
there too, to guide things if theygo off the rails a little bit.
Marguerite Matthe (19:09):
So mentorship is clearly a very important
component of this application.
How much should a applicant beworking with their mentor on the
application itself in terms ofwriting it or putting it together?
Tish Weig (19:20):
So I mean, I think at every step of the way in the process
you should be talking to your mentoron, you know, because certainly as
Michelle was seeing earlier on, youknow, one important component of this
application is that the mentor him orherself has to write a statement about
mentorship and the plan for guiding youthrough the, the time that you'll be
spending in the lab doing the project.
(19:41):
So you want to be talking with themfrequently and running things by them
and having them read drafts of stuffthat you've written as you go through
the process and working together,formulating this plan for that's gonna
you know, propel you forward with success.
Not only because this, you know, is goingto be important for your relationship
with your mentor and for your careersuccess, but also because what you're
going to put down on the paper and inthe actual application needs to match up
(20:03):
and it needs to reflect throughout theapplication that you've been talking to
the mentor and that the mentor has readand given input and is on the same page
with you in terms of what your plans are.
So I think it's critical to be engagingwith your mentor or mentors, right?
Every step of the way and not justthe primary mentor on the project, but
co-mentors people that, you know, othercollaborators, folks who've written these
(20:26):
applications before, people who really,you know, are going to give a critical
eye and maybe aren't your best friendsin your department and people that are
going to look at what you did, what youare presenting sort of with skepticism.
Maybe those are the, probably some of thebest people to get feedback from because
they're going to give you, give you reallycritical, um, feedback that that could
help you craft a better application.
(20:47):
So, certainly talking to mentorsand, and folks with experience and
other folks in the department, um,and getting their input on what,
what you're putting together I thinkis critical all, all throughout.
Steve (20:57):
And you know, mentorship is a huge discussion, um, that we
can't possibly do in this one session.
Tish Weigand (21:03):
That's an episode in and off itself.
Steve Korn (21:04):
But I guess I want to make another point.
Getting back to the application isyour mentor should be writing the
mentor statement and you can givethe mentor bullet points that say,
would you please hit these topics?
But think about it, if your mentor willnot spend the time to write a statement
(21:24):
on your behalf to bring in money, howgood a mentor is that and how much is
that person going to be there for you?
And the other part of it is there aresome mentors who are very good mentors
that don't understand the importanceof their statement and they think to
themselves, "Well, I'm a good mentorand everybody knows it. And so I'm just
going to say, yeah, I'll do a greatjob." But reviewers want to hear what
(21:47):
is the mentor specific plan for you?
And you know, especially a mentorwith a big lab, they may give more
attention to one person than another.
And the reviewers want to know thatthis person is paying attention to you
and knows exactly what you need andhow they're going to help you get it.
Michelle Jones-London (22:05):
Yeah, and I'll touch on what Tish
said about mentor or mentors.
I think the thing that we've seena lot of now is people having
a sense of more mentor teams.
Um, but once again it should be real.
Um, you don't want to just collect sort ofyour all star names and put them on there.
(22:28):
There should be a reason, a purpose,a responsibility and a frequency that
you're meeting with these other mentors.
But having, you know, perhaps morethan one mentor is beneficial to you.
Um, when it comes time for yourtransition or as you're looking for
your, your next steps in your careers,it just increases your networks.
(22:50):
It increases the likelihood that you'llhave more people out there who are
really invested in you as a trainee.
So that's a good ideato think about as well.
Steve Korn (23:01):
And, and just again, continuing that line of you only need
the mentors you need, not more thanyou need and not less than you need.
There's not the right number of mentors.
And we can say that aboutabsolutely everything in the grant.
There's not the right amount of data.
Lauren Ullr (23:18):
Well that was going to be my next question, Steve.
How many papers do I need?
Steve Korn (23:22):
You need exactly the right amount, Lauren.
But, but back to the mentor, you knowthe, you may only need one mentor who can
do everything or you may need multiplementors to handle different roles.
And I guess I would just say alsoeven if you have just one mentor or
you have a couple of mentors, I wouldrecommend having a real committee
(23:44):
that meets with you and your mentormaybe a couple of times a year.
And just to go over what you'vedone and where you're headed,
what you need to do to finish up.
And you need people on the committeethat will disagree with your mentor.
It's not, that should not be a rubberstamp committee that's of no value to you.
Michelle Jones-London (24:01):
Exactly.
And we've even been seeingthat for postdocs now.
That's something very common for graduateschool, these types of committees.
But we've seen this successfully done withpostdocs and even junior faculty as well.
It's really, it's really nice to havethose check-ins with people that don't
have the same um, conflict of interest.
Mar (24:22):
That's the real dream team.
People who are gonna elevateyou and encourage you to do,
to do more and to do better.
Michelle Jo (24:28):
Exactly, Marguerite
Lauren Ullrich (24:30):
Yeah.
So I mean, I think one of thethings that we hear a lot from
applicants are they're asking forsome kind of secret formula, right?
Like there is some right answer ofnumber of mentors, number of papers,
how many aims should I have and how doyou, how do you answer those questions?
Michelle Jones-London (24:49):
The Goldilocks thought of a grant.
There is just really, it really when wetalked about that gap analysis, right.
We talked a lot about--specific to you.
Your, career goals, your area ofscience, what you're proposing.
They're really, it's, it's the,right, what did you say, Steve?
(25:12):
The right number of papers is the rightnumber of papers for that field, for
that project, for where you are at yourstage of career; someone in their third
year versus someone in their fifth year.
Obviously you would have adifferent expectation maybe, but
it also depends on the field.
If you're doing something where theresearch is a fast turnaround for
outcomes, people are going to look more.
(25:34):
If there's something that maybe time andinvestment of doing the research, um,
the specific aims, it just takes longer.
Um, people will ask us, well, should itbe one big paper in Neuron or Cell or
should I publish a bunch of little papers.
We, we can't tell you that answer.
(25:57):
Um, and we can tell you that we'vefunded people with the one name
journals, but we've also funded peoplethat had highly significant projects
and, and had great, um, productivityin maybe not the one name journals.
So it really is about putting togetherthe most competitive application
(26:18):
you can put together for yourresearch with a supportive mentor
and with a plan that makes sense.
Steve (26:26):
Yeah, I think you really need to keep that in mind that you
know, it seems kind of silly tosay it, but I'm going to say it.
Reviewers are smart people andthey recognize excellent work
and they know what's appropriate.
Again, the way Michelle said it interms of time and amount and all of that
stuff, but we've given very prestigiousgrants to somebody with one paper that
(26:50):
a reviewer says, "This is only onepaper, but it turned the whole field
around" and other people can have 10so- so papers and the reviewers will
sit there and say,"Yeah, there are 10papers, but they're not really, there's
not much in them." And so there isno answer to any of those questions.
Marguerite Matthe (27:11):
Well, I think this has been a great overview of
how to approach fellowship and careerdevelopment award applications.
Thank you all for sharingyour wisdom with us today.
Can each of you share one last piece ofparting advice for our future applicants?
Michelle Jones (27:26):
Yeah, I mean the biggest thing in terms of getting a grant,
you can't get it unless you submit it.
You could worry about thestatistics or the right number
or all of these other things.
But it really is, you know,this is the business of science.
And as a trainee, I think therewe talked about in the very early
(27:48):
parts of this, the benefit to doingand writing an application that
has nothing to do with the money.
And so I would say make sureyou, you do it, it's worth it.
The other thing that Iwould say is to contact us.
We really don't want you out thereguessing, have a conversation with us
(28:09):
and hopefully this podcast has allowedyou to see that we aren't too bad.
Um, we're not the monsters that,that maybe you thought we were.
Marguerite Matth (28:20):
or aren't you?
[laughter]
Steve Korn (28:22):
They just have to take your word for that.
Yeah, I guess we often get asked fortemplates of successful applications.
There's different mindsets as towhether that's worthwhile or not.
I'm very much against itbecause of what Michelle said.
It's about you and your project andyou as an applicant and when you get
(28:43):
a template of somebody else's grant,that's the tendency is to copy it.
And not, not word for word obviously,but sort of the format and the
structure and it won't fit you.
And so reviewers are looking to knowthat you're doing something important
and you know you need to do andthat you have a plan for how to do
it and that you have a good mentor.
Tish (29:05):
So I would say the advice that I often give people who are preparing
applications is that even though yourapplication is going to sort of be in
the hands of the reviewers and sortof at their mercy, so to speak, you're
really in a pretty powerful position.
But you have the opportunity to sitdown and write on paper and present
yourself, your research, the environmentthat you're in and, and how that all
(29:26):
is going to lead to your success.
And so I always tell people it's importantto remember that you have control of
the narrative here and you can, you havecontrol of the story that you get to tell.
So make sure that you sort of spoonfeedthe reviewers the details that you
want them to see and you make thenarrative something that you want
them to, to read and understand.
Don't leave room for questions because thesort of kiss of death is when you know,
(29:49):
reviewers don't quite understand somethingor there's not quite enough detail where,
or you haven't addressed a particularweakness or issue in your application.
And then they sit around thetable and they start saying,
well what does this mean?
Or what do you think about that?
Or maybe this or maybe that ifyou leave space for them to ask
questions, it usually doesn'tturn out well for your score.
So I would say just be empoweredand control the narrative and, and
(30:12):
present yourself in the best possibleway, in the clearest possible way
that you can in your application.
St (30:17):
And if I get to say one more thing before Marguerite shuts me off
Lauren Ullrich (30:20):
I guess you do then, Steve [laughter]
Steve (30:23):
I saw her looking at me.
Also, you have to keep in mind that ifyou do get a critical critique and not
a great score, it is not about you.
It is not a statement about you.
Michelle Jones-London (30:37):
Exactly.
Steve K (30:37):
It is a statement about what was written in that application.
You should not take it personally.
And as frustrated and angry anddepressed and whatever else you might
be, you should not take it personally.
It is not a statement aboutyour worth in science.
It's a statement about whatyou wrote in that application.
Michelle Jones-London (30:58):
Yup.
You get a three day pity party andthen you come back and you revise.
Marguerite Ma (31:03):
All right Lauren, we'll you've done this three times.
Surely you have some advice.
Lauren Ullrich (31:08):
Um, I guess just following up on what Tish said is:
it really is a story that you'retelling the reviewers and to make
sure that every single piece of theapplication tells the same story and
don't leave opportunities on the table.
So, um, in your biosketchyou have a chance to put a
personal statement in there.
You should take advantage of thatopportunity and use that as a way to
(31:33):
shape how the reviewers are going tosee you by showing how you see yourself.
But it's very important that whateveryou write in there as you know, your
your ultimate career goal, that has tomatch what your mentor writes as what
they see as your ultimate career goal.
Because reviewers will pickup on those discrepancies.
Um, and I think one way to ensure thatyou're doing this is to give it to
(31:58):
people that are not involved in yourresearch, because reviewers will be
familiar with your topic more or lessdepending on what you're applying for
and what study section, but they don'tknow what's happening in your lab.
And you want to make sure that like Stevesaid, that you've actually communicated
your value, your story, your research,why it's exciting, why it's important.
(32:21):
And it's really hard tosee that when you're in it.
Marguerite, what about you?
Marguerite (32:25):
I would just expand on what you just said and also have your
writers of your letters of recommendationalso amplify what you have said about
your goals and your plans for thefuture and what your mentor has said.
They should know about that.
And the best way to do that isto give them an outline, talk
(32:45):
about the things that you want todo, even give them your personal
statement, your candidate statement.
They should be able to seethat, your biosketch, give them
everything they need to know.
But also have a conversation with themto make sure that they get what it is
that you want to showcase about yourself.
And hopefully they arealso in agreeance with you.
And if they are not a person whocan do that, you should find someone
(33:09):
else who can speak to those things.
Lauren (33:13):
Well, that's all we have time for today on Building Up the Nerve.
Thank you to our guests thisweek for sharing their expertise.
And also thank you to program directorof Bob Riddle for our theme song and
music, and we'll see you next timewhen we tackle what happens after you
hit submit on that grant application.
You can find past episodes of thispodcast and many more grant application
resources on the web at ninds.nih.gov.
Marguerite Matthe (33:35):
You can email us questions nindsnervepod@nih.gov.
Make sure you subscribe to the podcaston Apple podcasts or your favorite
podcast app so you don't miss an episode.
We'll 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