January 10, 2020 • 29 mins
Learn how program staff decide whether to recommend funding from Dr. Lyn Jakeman, Director of Neuroscience, and Program Directors Drs. Amelie Gubitz and Jim Gnadt.
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/558574/2400797-episode-7-program-recommendation
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Lauren (00:02):
Welcome to the National Institute of Neurological Disorders
and Stroke's Building Up the Nerve,a podcast for neuroscience trainees
that takes you through the life cycleof a grant from idea to award at NINDS
with the people who make it happen.
We know that applying for NIH fundingcan be daunting, but we're here to help.
It's our job.
Marguerite Matthews (00:22):
Hello, I'm Marguerite Matthews, a health
program specialist at NINDS
Lauren Ullrich (00:25):
and I'm Lauren Ullrich, a scientific program manager
at NINDS, and we're your hosts today.
In the last episode we discussedthe scientific review process
Marguerite Matthews (00:34):
and today we're going to talk about the
program review and recommendationfor funding of grant applications.
As always, we want to remind you thateverything we talk about may only
be relevant for NINDS, so if you'reapplying to a different Institute
or center, it's always best to checkwith them about their policies.
Lauren Ullr (00:59):
So joining us today are Dr Lyn Jakeman, director of the
division of neuroscience, Dr Jim Gnadt,a program director in the systems and
cognitive neuroscience cluster andDr Amelie Gubitz, a program director
in the neurodegeneration cluster.
Let's start with introductions.
Lyn Jakeman (01:14):
Hi, how are you?
I'm Lyn Jakeman and I'm the directorof the division of neuroscience.
This is the division that overseesmost of the program directors that have
portfolios in the neuroscience areas.
Um, so I've been here abouta little over five years.
I came here as a program director.
I managed the spinal cord injuryportfolio for about five years.
And before then I was at the OhioState University where I was a
(01:37):
faculty member in the department ofphysiology and cell biology there.
I also worked a lot withthe neuroscience department.
Um, and I really enjoyed workingat Ohio state; I enjoyed teaching,
I enjoyed research and I enjoyed,um, service and I came here to
kind of further my service career.
At home I do a lot of, lot of things.
(01:59):
Um, and I think one of the things I'mdoing right now is learning how to quilt.
So that's been a lot of fun.
Lauren Ullrich (02:04):
Nice
Marguerite Matthews (02:05):
My mom's a big quilter and so is Lauren's mom.
Laure (02:08):
I learned it from my mom.
Yeah, I love quilting.
Lyn Jakema (02:10):
Yeah, it's all about putting little squares together
and making bigger pictures.
It's lots of fun.
Amelie G (02:14):
and I'm Amelie Gubitz.
I'm a program director in theneurodegeneration cluster and
my program area focuses on adultonset neuromuscular diseases.
So for instance, many of the grantsthat I manage focus on ALS, but I
also cover some of the ultra rareneuromuscular diseases like Kennedy
disease and hereditary spastic paraplegia.
So yeah, I've been at NINDSfor a little over 10 years now.
(02:37):
And actually when I firststarted at NINDS, I was part
of the neurogenetics cluster.
I was an analyst supporting a groupof five program directors there.
And then a few years later I movedover to the neurodegeneration
cluster as a program director.
So that's my current position.
And before I came to NINDS, I was aresearch assistant professor at the
University of Pennsylvania and I did, um,the disease mechanistic research on spinal
(03:02):
muscular atrophy, which is a juvenileand, um, pediatric neuromuscular disease.
Jim Gnadt (03:08):
Hi.
So I'm Jim Gnadt and I'm a programdirector in the systems and cognitive
neuroscience cluster at NINDS and, uh,my portfolio's in systems neuroscience
and computational neuroscience.
Um, so I've been at NINDS foralso a little over 10 years.
Um, and before I came here I was aindependent investigator since, uh, 1990
(03:33):
when I got my first faculty position.
Uh, I've been at several universitiesbut most of my time was at Stony
Brook University in New York.
And I worked on sort ofneuroengineering approaches to
understanding circuits in the brain.
Marguerite Matthe (03:55):
So one of the first things posted after the study
section is the priority score andthe percentile of an application.
Can one of you tell us what thedifference is between a priority
score and a percentile and what dothose numbers mean to the applicant?
Amelie Gubitz (04:11):
The score is sort of an aggregate score.
So the final score from every reviewerwho sits on the study section.
So each reviewer voteswith one single score.
And when you get the summarystatement, you'll also see that
there are criterion scores.
And one question I often getis that people ask what's the
algorithm to get from the criterionscores to the final scores?
(04:33):
And the answer is there is no algorithm.
The criterion scores justprovide additional guidance
to the applicants, what thestrengths and the weaknesses were.
But, um, the final score,that's what counts.
And for certain grant activities, um,the scores then get converted into
percentiles and the percentiles arebasically your relative ranking and it
(04:57):
helps normalize different study sectionsand also helps normalize a single study
section over three review meetings.
Marguerite Matthe (05:06):
So what types of trainees or applicants might
see a percentile versus others?
Like which applicationsare not percentiled.
Ly (05:14):
So the applications that are reviewed at NINDS are not percentiled.
The ones that are reviewed in the centerfor scientific review, they're reviewed
with a lot of other training applicationsof similar--from similar areas of research
and those will be percentiled'causethey have a good history of how
that study section scores over time.
(05:35):
So these, the percentile, they kind ofum, normalize the curve so to speak, so
that, uh, 80th percentile is the samein one study section or another study
section relative to the grants thatthat study section has seen over time.
Lauren Ullrich (05:49):
Right.
And I think at this point, only our F31sare percentiled and reviewed at CSR.
I think all the rest of our trainingrelated mechanisms are reviewed in house.
So where can applicants findthese scores and what should they
do once that score is posted?
Jim Gnad (06:08):
So, uh, the, the score will first show up in the ERA commons,
uh, after the review panel has met.
So that's the first place thatyou can see the raw score.
Now, um, it will take a couple of weeksbefore the summary statement comes out.
So in the time between when you can findyour score in the ERA commons and when
(06:28):
the summary statement comes out, um,you know, you can talk to your advisor
about the score, what that might mean.
Um, just to review how the scores arereported from the panels: what they do is
everybody votes on a one to nine scale.
Um, everybody in the roomvotes on a one to nine scale.
(06:50):
And then the average of those is,is reported as the score that you
get in your summary statement.
So scores of one, two andthree are really good scores.
It means there are little tovery few, uh, concerns of the
reviewers about the application.
Scores of four, five and sixare good scores, but it means
(07:10):
the reviewers had concerns aboutsomething in, in the review.
And once you get the summary statement,it's, it's those concerns you want
to look at, you want to discusswith your advisors and your mentors.
And at that point, uh, it mightbe appropriate to contact your
program officer by email and say,I'd like to discuss some of the
issues in the summary statement.
(07:31):
And then if the summary statementhas scores of sevens, eights, and
nines, that means the reviewershad some really serious concerns
about your, your proposal.
And those are things you should reallytalk seriously to your mentors about, uh,
about how to deal with, what to do withsuch serious concerns about your proposal.
Lyn Jake (07:50):
So I love the question about what to do when you get your
score because it's just out enoughinformation to do a lot with.
So I usually say, you know, when youfirst get your score, look at it,
and then do whatever you do for fun.
Go for a walk, go out with yourfriends, go play soccer, go do
whatever you want to do becausethe score isn't telling you much.
(08:12):
It's telling you what range you're in.
So if it's one of the, if it's areally high score, then you can go
out and do what you do to celebrate.
And if it's a low score, you cando whatever you do to commiserate.
But, but for the most part you don't havea lot of information with just the score.
So just keep doing what you do, take alittle break, go back to your experiments
and wait for that summary statement.
Amelie Gubitz (08:32):
Yeah.
And it's the scientific review officerswho prepare the summary statements and
they have a large number of summarystatements to prepare right after
study section so it takes them awhile.
And I think they oftentimes going to scoreorders so that the um, summary statements
with the better scores go out first.
So sometimes patience is warranted.
(08:54):
And there's really not much that aprogram director would be able to tell you
before the summary statement is released.
So it's good to wait until it's out, butthen don't hesitate to send us an email,
we are really happy to sort of talkwith the applicants about the critiques.
And um, you know, it's often timesthings may be fixable and some criticisms
(09:14):
may be a little bit more challengingand that's sort of once the summary
statement is out, that's the timeto strategize and to decide whether
the application could be, should beresubmitted or maybe a new application
is warranted or a change of strategy.
So that's the time when it's, it'sgood to contact NINDS and at the same
(09:34):
time also brainstorm with your advisorhow to move the project forward.
If it's in a range that islikely not going to be funded.
And we'll have a sense of that butfinal decisions get made much closer
to the actual advisory council meeting.
Marguerite Matthew (09:50):
How does the program arm of NINDS decide how
to recommend funding for council?
Lyn Jakeman (09:56):
How about I start with that one?
Lauren Ullrich (09:57):
Okay.
Lyn Jakeman (09:58):
I'd love to start with that one.
So what we have to do as leadership--whichincludes Dr Koroshetz, who's the
Institute director, all of the divisiondirectors and all of the scientific
leads from the Institute--we haveto make sure that we're funding the
best science and we have to make surethat we're funding the best training.
(10:20):
So with your training grant, whatwe're looking at is the score and
the summary statement from grantsthat were reviewed by peer reviewers.
So as far as the score goes, ifit's a really high score, that
pretty much says that the entirepanel felt that this was a strong
application from all the perspectives.
The project is great, the investigatoris great, the environment is great,
(10:45):
all those things the entire studysection was pretty in agreement on.
And so those, we don't spend a lot of timetalking about them to tell you the truth.
The ones that were scored very,very low, same kind of thing.
There are several concerns thatweighed down that study section.
All of the reviewers kindof said maybe not so much.
(11:08):
The ones in the middle and the middlecan be anywhere from this score of
about a 20 down to about a 40 ish score.
That kind of range, we actually look atevery single one of those applications
and we look at them carefully with theprogram director, which is why it's a
good idea to contact your program officerafter you get your summary statement.
(11:28):
And what we're looking for is, is thisgoing to be a project that is really
going to be good for the trainee, it'sgoing to be good for this science and
things are going to work out so thatat the end of this project, the trainee
is going to be one step farther towardbecoming an independent investigator.
Um, and so we look at, we look at avariety of things, but it's really those,
(11:51):
those basics is, is the trainee reallythe strongest trainee for this project?
Is the project a great projectthat's going to succeed and
is the environment supportive?
And in that sense we arelooking at the training plan.
We're looking to make sure that yourtraining plan isn't something that's
just generic that everybody just getsstomped into, but it actually is for you.
(12:11):
Um, and so we look at all of those things.
Amelie Gubitz (12:14):
Yeah.
And that's sometimes when weactually then ask the applicant
to send us an informal rebuttal.
It's a document that won't bepresented to our advisory council.
It usually also doesn't go to seniorleadership, but it just helps us as
program director to see how you think youcan address the identified weaknesses.
And sometimes it may just be anoversight or grantsmanship issue.
(12:38):
And sometimes, um, you know, itmay require additional preliminary
data on new experiments and a moresubstantial change to the project.
It just then helps us evaluate whetherwe can push this forward and make sure
that, um, you know, the research canstart sooner or whether it may be a
good idea to sort of take a step backand craft a stronger reapplication.
Jim Gnadt (13:01):
Yeah.
I think Amelie has a reallyimportant point there.
What's most useful for us is tounderstand what you would do in response
to the concerns of the reviewer.
So a list of complaints about thereviewers is actually not very useful.
Even an iterated list of justrebuttals, while they sometimes may
(13:22):
be valid rebuttals, really what's mostvaluable is what are you going to do
about the concerns that the reviewershad, uh, either in terms of giving
us some ammunition to promote yourproject in this council round or to
think about what changes you wouldmake if you need to write a revision.
Marguerite (13:39):
So sort of to Lyn's point before, it may be best that after
you get your summary statement, you writeall the nasty things you didn't like
about the review on a piece of paperand then you crumble it and throw it
in the garbage and then get to thinkingabout what are some ways that you know,
again, as to your point, Jim, of howyou're actually going to address this
and make your training plan better.
(13:59):
I think one thing our audienceshould really appreciate is that this
isn't just about getting funding.
It's also about really consideringwhat your training plan is going to
be and how you want to proceed inyour career because you're going to
have to do this over and over again.
How am I going to grow?
How am I going to become better?
And I think just even sometimes inour personal lives it's nice to have a
little bit of plan of action and is thisreally going to get me to the next step?
Lauren Ullrich (14:22):
Right, right.
I think trainees might be surprisedby how much of the conversation
that we have is centered aroundwhat's best for the trainee.
Marguerite Matthews (14:28):
Yes.
Lauren Ull (14:29):
and like whether the weaknesses that reviewers identified
are going to be things that are reallygoing to hurt the trainee: it's not a
good mentorship situation; the project isnot going to set them up well for their
postdoc or their junior faculty position;like, a lot of the conversation in the
training realm is centered around that.
And so it's not just that we don'twant to give you money, [laughter]
(14:49):
it's that we don't want to enablea bad situation to continue.
And if we have something in writingfrom you and your advisor about what's
going to be changed, then that givesus a lot more leeway to say like,"Hey,
you said you were going to do this forthis trainee" and it lets us help you.
Um, and so, you know, in that vein, ifan applicant gets asked to respond to a
(15:12):
critique from a review, are there certaindo's or don'ts that they should consider
when putting together this response?
Lyn Jakema (15:21):
Well, I think Amelie touched on one thing earlier, which is,
um, these criterion scores really onlyprovide you with information about what
kinds of concerns drove those reviewersto come up with an impact score.
So I wouldn't spend any time averaging ordividing or multiplying those scores out.
(15:41):
Um, because you can go crazy alittle bit and you won't come up with
the magic number at the other end.
Um, and I think Jim touched on, try andlook at this as a critique or concerns
of the document that you sent them.
These are not critiques of you or youradvisor or the day of the week, but
they're just the document in front ofyou in comparison to the others that the,
(16:06):
that the reviewers have seen, um, havesome areas that need to be addressed.
And so if you can, if you can stayobjective in terms of evaluating the
critique of the document as such, Ithink that it helps calm down some of
those emotive responses that we all have.
Amelie Gubitz (16:22):
Yeah, I think the reviewers are really well-intended
and really what they are trying to dois help you strengthen the project.
And I think especially for the traininggrant, the criteria and scores,
they are helpful to tell you whetherthere may be some weaknesses in the
research plan or maybe some weaknesses,more sort of in the training career
development aspects of the application.
(16:43):
So that will help you if you decide towork on a resubmission, you know, to sort
of figure out which parts of the proposalneed a little bit more work and need to
be strengthened or if it doesn't need aresubmission, you still should sort of
take that criticism to heart and see,even if I get the grant now, this is
something that I really should be workingtowards and sort of be very aware of.
(17:07):
Especially with for instance,career development activities,
which are very addressable.
Jim Gnadt (17:12):
Yeah, it's all about constructive critique.
Lyn Jakeman (17:14):
I think another" do," cause we did some "don'ts,"
but I think another"do" is, isdo talk to your program officer.
Um, sometimes the written wordisn't everything and sometimes
the program officer can help youinterpret in the context of other
reviews that, that program officerhas read about what this might really
mean, um, for your application.
Amelie Gubitz (17:35):
Yeah, I think phone calls are great and
that's really part of our job.
In a way we almost expect it that weget a lot of calls after study sections
and sometimes we even reach out to theapplicants to, "Hey can we set up a
call?" But be proactive to send us a line.
Then we'll set up a phone call and that'sprobably the best and fastest way to sort
of make sense of the summary statement,but also always have your advisor in the
(17:59):
loop so they sort of understand how wesee things and how they can help you.
Marguerite (18:04):
And this meeting is generally more of a processing session and
not really a, "you're going to get answersfrom the program officer of whether or not
you're going to get funded" or"you shouldand shouldn't do these changes." It really
should just be an opportunity to sortof debrief and get more clarity and not
expect to get any hard and fast answers.
Lauren Ullrich (18:23):
Right.
Amelie Gubit (18:23):
Well we don't know either, especially for the applications
that are sort of in the gray zone.
We don't know what our training office,what their pay plan will look like
and how many funds are available.
So it's a little bit of a process andit certainly takes a couple of weeks.
Lyn Jakeman (18:37):
Yeah.
And there's other things to be thinkingabout, especially with the training grant
and, and that is thinking about in theprocess of considering whether or not
to resubmit a proposal that's in thegray zone and thinking about how that
fits into your training plan as Jim wassaying, in terms of the timeline as well.
There are some cutoffs in time, um, forthe F31s, for the F32s, for the K99s,
(19:04):
and if you're watching all of thosetimelines, it may make more sense just to
move on to another project; it may makesense to be really seriously considering
a resubmission even if you don't knowyet if your grant's going to get funded.
Amelie Gubitz (19:17):
Yeah.
But sometimes it does mean thatyou may actually have to switch the
funding opportunity announcements,especially for the F32s, you have
to apply very early during yourpostdoctoral training or even beforehand.
So by the time you've gone throughreview, you sort of may have moved
out of the eligibility window.
But it doesn't mean that there areno routes for funding for you because
(19:40):
we have other grant activitiesthat'll allow you then to apply to.
So you may switch to aK01 or other mechanisms.
So there's always a solution, but that'swhen it's good to talk to us and also
colleagues in our training office.
Lauren Ullrich (19:55):
Right.
We can always help you out.
Um, and so if an applicant gets askedto respond to the critiques, does
that mean that they will get funded?
Jim Gnadt (20:04):
No.
[laughter] The decision to get fundedis made at the time that advice is
given by council to the Institutedirectors to make a final decision
on who gets paid and who doesn't.
But talking to your program officerand talking to your mentor and advisors
is useful to give us ammunition abouthow we will deliberate about your
(20:26):
project and how you're thinking andresponding to the reviewers' critiques.
Um, but the, the final decisions,uh, are made by council and
the Institute directors and thedirector of the training program.
And that will come later at council time.
Lauren (20:44):
Yeah, it all takes time.
Marguerite Matthews (20:45):
Right.
Lyn J (20:46):
This is true not just for fellowships, but throughout your career.
Um, anytime that a program directorreaches out and asks you for a response
to the review, all it mean (20:55):
we'd like a little bit more information.
That's really all it is.
And we may be specific about what we'relooking for or we may be very vague
about what we're looking for, but, butit just means we need more information.
Marguerite Matthews (21:10):
Yup.
So speaking of Council, we willbe talking a little more in depth
about the council review process.
And in a previous episode we talkedabout the scientific peer review process.
But can you all explain to our listenersthe difference between the scientific peer
review and the advisory council review?
Amelie Gubitz (21:27):
I mean, the peer reviewers will look at the actual full
application and the experts in the field,the will probably have quite a bit of
expertise in reviewing grants over theyear and they meet at study section.
The advisory council it's sort of asecondary review panel, it's higher level.
(21:47):
And one thing to note is that notall grant activities actually go
to our advisory council meeting.
So, for instance, fellowshipapplications, the F31s, the funding
decisions get made in house beforethe actual advisory council meeting.
But um, the career developmentgrant activities, they typically
(22:09):
go to, um, council meeting.
It doesn't mean that every applicationgets discussed, but certainly
they go to council considerations.
But the council members will onlyhave access to the summary statement.
So it's a second tier review andsort of higher level, more strategic.
They are not going to sort oflook at individual applications.
They won't have access to them andthey make decisions based on the
(22:32):
input from the initial peer reviewers.
Jim G (22:36):
Yeah, I look at it as the peer review are the experts in your
scientific domain and in training andthe specifics of your training program.
I know what I'm looking for when Italk to, uh, applicants afterwards
is, um, how are you respondingto the summary statement and the
advice and the constructive critiqueyou got from the peer review?
(23:01):
And, and you know, it's, it'svery nice to see people who have
very productive responses to that.
But I don't make decisionsabout the expertise.
That's what the peer review is about.
Lauren U (23:13):
Is there anything else that you wish applicants understood
about this process or any commonmisconceptions that you want to clear up?
Ameli (23:19):
I mean, I think one thing to note is that it is a very competitive
process and I think it's sort of my keyadvice is always don't get discouraged.
And I think perseverance often helpsand I think it's important as an
applicant to embrace going throughthe peer review process and always
view it as a learning opportunity.
Even if the outcome isn't exactlywhat you were looking for, you're
(23:42):
still going to learn a lot from goingthrough the process, getting the
critique from the peer reviewers andthen strategizing how to move forward.
I think both for um, a really good summarystatement or for some that sort of picked
on some weaknesses, you always learn fromthe process and never take it personal.
Lauren Ullrich (24:01):
All right, well thank you all for
sharing your wisdom today.
Um, so can we ask each of youfor one last piece of parting
advice for our future applicants?
Jim Gnadt (24:12):
Be persistent.
It's, this is a very competitive field.
You've chosen one of the most competitiveand difficult fields there is to, to join.
Um, but those who are persistent,those who are good, you will succeed.
Just keep at it.
L (24:30):
If I were to give some advice to trainees and to young investigators,
persistence definitely plays a role.
I would also say that you're, you'rerunning a marathon and not a sprint.
Um, and what I mean by that is thatif you look at any grant deadline
(24:51):
and put it on your calendar and startworrying about it as if it was an
undergraduate exam and kind of cram thenight before that your results probably
aren't going to be what you hoped for.
But one of the best things to dois to consider that you've taken
on a career in writing, really.
And the science is almostsecondary to the writing.
(25:11):
So develop a style, a pattern where youwrite every day, a little bit every day.
And then when you're doing a grantapplication, you're building on
the things that you do every day.
And it's much easier than if it's abig mountain that you have to overcome
and the stress of procrastination.
Amelie Gubitz (25:28):
Yeah, I think Lyn, that's a really good point.
And certainly putting the applicationstogether, it's not an easy task and it
takes time and it has to mature and youhave to sort of get a lot of support
from your advisors and other colleagues.
But even in before you submit thegrant, don't hesitate to reach
out to program directors at NINDS.
We are, you know, happy to sort ofbrainstorm about a project idea,
(25:51):
to help you identify the right um,funding opportunity announcement.
And we oftentimes take a peek atdraft specific aims page and we
can give you a little bit feedback.
And sometimes there are also overlappingareas of research, so it may not
always be that, you know, NINDSis the only Institute at NIH that
(26:12):
may support that type of research.
So I think it's a good idea to actuallysort of find out who the program director
at NINDS would be for your program area.
And you can contact us and we cangive you a little bit of advice
and we are certainly happy to lookat a draft specific aims page.
Lyn Jakeman (26:30):
and don't be afraid of your program directors.
We are so lucky in this country thatwe have a system at the NIH where
program directors can reach out andbe your advocate and your friend.
Um, and we've seen a of applications.
So we come with a greatdeal of experience.
Um, and we're really happy to help younavigate that whole confusing process.
(26:53):
We're here to help.
Lauren Ullr (26:54):
That's our tagline.
Marguerite Matthews (26:56):
Yes.
We are here to help.
Lauren Ullrich (26:58):
And Marguerite, do you have any advice?
Marguerite Matthe (27:00):
Yeah, I think that getting this feedback is a great
opportunity to have an attitude checkand have, um, an outlook check and
really think about what it is thatyou want from this whole process
that isn't just about dollar signs.
Um, you know, we certainly wouldlike to see your work get funded.
Um, but we also want you to be goodscientists and, um, have a plan.
(27:25):
And so sometimes your plan wasn't thatwell put together or maybe your best,
um, just wasn't quite good enough.
Um, but that doesn't mean that therearen't opportunities for growth.
And so hopefully you will take all ofthis advice and be able to, you know, pull
yourself up out of despair if that's thecase for you or if you're already on cloud
(27:45):
nine, stay up there, um, and hopefullyhelp other people as they tackle this.
But it's, it doesn't haveto be the end of the world.
And, um, it's not necessarilyabout building thick skin, it's
just about thinking about howyou're going to um, try again.
What about you Lauren?
Laure (28:01):
I mean, I think to follow up on that, the summary statement is
just an additional perspective from,you know, three to five additional
people that have read your application.
And like I think we touched on earlierand have spoken about in earlier episodes,
this is not an indictment of you.
This is merely an evaluation of theapplication that you have put together.
(28:22):
And really think critically aboutthe reviews, discuss it with your
mentor, discuss it with your peers.
Sometimes the reviewers get it wrong andthat's something to have a conversation
with your program director about, butthey didn't get everything wrong, right?
So before you have the conversationwith your program director, you want
to have that debrief with other peopleat your institution to say like,
(28:46):
okay, these critiques are valid, thisone for real--I don't agree with.
So let's make a plan for how we're goingto address this in the future application.
And then that's something you candiscuss with the program director.
But just think about it as, asgetting some outside perspective,
which is always valuable.
So that's all we have time fortoday on Building Up the Nerve.
(29:13):
So thank you again to our guests thisweek for sharing their expertise and
thank you to program director BobRiddle for our theme song and music.
We'll see you next time when wetalk about the Council process.
You can find past episodes of thispodcast and many more grant application
resources on the web at ninds.nih.gov.
Marguerite Matthe (29:33):
Email us with any 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 trainees
that takes you through the life cycleof a grant from idea to award at NINDS
with the people who make it happen.
We know that applying for NIH fundingcan be daunting, but we're here to help.
It's our job.
Marguerite Matthews (00:22):
Hello, I'm Marguerite Matthews, a health
program specialist at NINDS
Lauren Ullrich (00:25):
and I'm Lauren Ullrich, a scientific program manager
at NINDS, and we're your hosts today.
In the last episode we discussedthe scientific review process
Marguerite Matthews (00:34):
and today we're going to talk about the
program review and recommendationfor funding of grant applications.
As always, we want to remind you thateverything we talk about may only
be relevant for NINDS, so if you'reapplying to a different Institute
or center, it's always best to checkwith them about their policies.
Lauren Ullr (00:59):
So joining us today are Dr Lyn Jakeman, director of the
division of neuroscience, Dr Jim Gnadt,a program director in the systems and
cognitive neuroscience cluster andDr Amelie Gubitz, a program director
in the neurodegeneration cluster.
Let's start with introductions.
Lyn Jakeman (01:14):
Hi, how are you?
I'm Lyn Jakeman and I'm the directorof the division of neuroscience.
This is the division that overseesmost of the program directors that have
portfolios in the neuroscience areas.
Um, so I've been here abouta little over five years.
I came here as a program director.
I managed the spinal cord injuryportfolio for about five years.
And before then I was at the OhioState University where I was a
(01:37):
faculty member in the department ofphysiology and cell biology there.
I also worked a lot withthe neuroscience department.
Um, and I really enjoyed workingat Ohio state; I enjoyed teaching,
I enjoyed research and I enjoyed,um, service and I came here to
kind of further my service career.
At home I do a lot of, lot of things.
(01:59):
Um, and I think one of the things I'mdoing right now is learning how to quilt.
So that's been a lot of fun.
Lauren Ullrich (02:04):
Nice
Marguerite Matthews (02:05):
My mom's a big quilter and so is Lauren's mom.
Laure (02:08):
I learned it from my mom.
Yeah, I love quilting.
Lyn Jakema (02:10):
Yeah, it's all about putting little squares together
and making bigger pictures.
It's lots of fun.
Amelie G (02:14):
and I'm Amelie Gubitz.
I'm a program director in theneurodegeneration cluster and
my program area focuses on adultonset neuromuscular diseases.
So for instance, many of the grantsthat I manage focus on ALS, but I
also cover some of the ultra rareneuromuscular diseases like Kennedy
disease and hereditary spastic paraplegia.
So yeah, I've been at NINDSfor a little over 10 years now.
(02:37):
And actually when I firststarted at NINDS, I was part
of the neurogenetics cluster.
I was an analyst supporting a groupof five program directors there.
And then a few years later I movedover to the neurodegeneration
cluster as a program director.
So that's my current position.
And before I came to NINDS, I was aresearch assistant professor at the
University of Pennsylvania and I did, um,the disease mechanistic research on spinal
(03:02):
muscular atrophy, which is a juvenileand, um, pediatric neuromuscular disease.
Jim Gnadt (03:08):
Hi.
So I'm Jim Gnadt and I'm a programdirector in the systems and cognitive
neuroscience cluster at NINDS and, uh,my portfolio's in systems neuroscience
and computational neuroscience.
Um, so I've been at NINDS foralso a little over 10 years.
Um, and before I came here I was aindependent investigator since, uh, 1990
(03:33):
when I got my first faculty position.
Uh, I've been at several universitiesbut most of my time was at Stony
Brook University in New York.
And I worked on sort ofneuroengineering approaches to
understanding circuits in the brain.
Marguerite Matthe (03:55):
So one of the first things posted after the study
section is the priority score andthe percentile of an application.
Can one of you tell us what thedifference is between a priority
score and a percentile and what dothose numbers mean to the applicant?
Amelie Gubitz (04:11):
The score is sort of an aggregate score.
So the final score from every reviewerwho sits on the study section.
So each reviewer voteswith one single score.
And when you get the summarystatement, you'll also see that
there are criterion scores.
And one question I often getis that people ask what's the
algorithm to get from the criterionscores to the final scores?
(04:33):
And the answer is there is no algorithm.
The criterion scores justprovide additional guidance
to the applicants, what thestrengths and the weaknesses were.
But, um, the final score,that's what counts.
And for certain grant activities, um,the scores then get converted into
percentiles and the percentiles arebasically your relative ranking and it
(04:57):
helps normalize different study sectionsand also helps normalize a single study
section over three review meetings.
Marguerite Matthe (05:06):
So what types of trainees or applicants might
see a percentile versus others?
Like which applicationsare not percentiled.
Ly (05:14):
So the applications that are reviewed at NINDS are not percentiled.
The ones that are reviewed in the centerfor scientific review, they're reviewed
with a lot of other training applicationsof similar--from similar areas of research
and those will be percentiled'causethey have a good history of how
that study section scores over time.
(05:35):
So these, the percentile, they kind ofum, normalize the curve so to speak, so
that, uh, 80th percentile is the samein one study section or another study
section relative to the grants thatthat study section has seen over time.
Lauren Ullrich (05:49):
Right.
And I think at this point, only our F31sare percentiled and reviewed at CSR.
I think all the rest of our trainingrelated mechanisms are reviewed in house.
So where can applicants findthese scores and what should they
do once that score is posted?
Jim Gnad (06:08):
So, uh, the, the score will first show up in the ERA commons,
uh, after the review panel has met.
So that's the first place thatyou can see the raw score.
Now, um, it will take a couple of weeksbefore the summary statement comes out.
So in the time between when you can findyour score in the ERA commons and when
(06:28):
the summary statement comes out, um,you know, you can talk to your advisor
about the score, what that might mean.
Um, just to review how the scores arereported from the panels: what they do is
everybody votes on a one to nine scale.
Um, everybody in the roomvotes on a one to nine scale.
(06:50):
And then the average of those is,is reported as the score that you
get in your summary statement.
So scores of one, two andthree are really good scores.
It means there are little tovery few, uh, concerns of the
reviewers about the application.
Scores of four, five and sixare good scores, but it means
(07:10):
the reviewers had concerns aboutsomething in, in the review.
And once you get the summary statement,it's, it's those concerns you want
to look at, you want to discusswith your advisors and your mentors.
And at that point, uh, it mightbe appropriate to contact your
program officer by email and say,I'd like to discuss some of the
issues in the summary statement.
(07:31):
And then if the summary statementhas scores of sevens, eights, and
nines, that means the reviewershad some really serious concerns
about your, your proposal.
And those are things you should reallytalk seriously to your mentors about, uh,
about how to deal with, what to do withsuch serious concerns about your proposal.
Lyn Jake (07:50):
So I love the question about what to do when you get your
score because it's just out enoughinformation to do a lot with.
So I usually say, you know, when youfirst get your score, look at it,
and then do whatever you do for fun.
Go for a walk, go out with yourfriends, go play soccer, go do
whatever you want to do becausethe score isn't telling you much.
(08:12):
It's telling you what range you're in.
So if it's one of the, if it's areally high score, then you can go
out and do what you do to celebrate.
And if it's a low score, you cando whatever you do to commiserate.
But, but for the most part you don't havea lot of information with just the score.
So just keep doing what you do, take alittle break, go back to your experiments
and wait for that summary statement.
Amelie Gubitz (08:32):
Yeah.
And it's the scientific review officerswho prepare the summary statements and
they have a large number of summarystatements to prepare right after
study section so it takes them awhile.
And I think they oftentimes going to scoreorders so that the um, summary statements
with the better scores go out first.
So sometimes patience is warranted.
(08:54):
And there's really not much that aprogram director would be able to tell you
before the summary statement is released.
So it's good to wait until it's out, butthen don't hesitate to send us an email,
we are really happy to sort of talkwith the applicants about the critiques.
And um, you know, it's often timesthings may be fixable and some criticisms
(09:14):
may be a little bit more challengingand that's sort of once the summary
statement is out, that's the timeto strategize and to decide whether
the application could be, should beresubmitted or maybe a new application
is warranted or a change of strategy.
So that's the time when it's, it'sgood to contact NINDS and at the same
(09:34):
time also brainstorm with your advisorhow to move the project forward.
If it's in a range that islikely not going to be funded.
And we'll have a sense of that butfinal decisions get made much closer
to the actual advisory council meeting.
Marguerite Matthew (09:50):
How does the program arm of NINDS decide how
to recommend funding for council?
Lyn Jakeman (09:56):
How about I start with that one?
Lauren Ullrich (09:57):
Okay.
Lyn Jakeman (09:58):
I'd love to start with that one.
So what we have to do as leadership--whichincludes Dr Koroshetz, who's the
Institute director, all of the divisiondirectors and all of the scientific
leads from the Institute--we haveto make sure that we're funding the
best science and we have to make surethat we're funding the best training.
(10:20):
So with your training grant, whatwe're looking at is the score and
the summary statement from grantsthat were reviewed by peer reviewers.
So as far as the score goes, ifit's a really high score, that
pretty much says that the entirepanel felt that this was a strong
application from all the perspectives.
The project is great, the investigatoris great, the environment is great,
(10:45):
all those things the entire studysection was pretty in agreement on.
And so those, we don't spend a lot of timetalking about them to tell you the truth.
The ones that were scored very,very low, same kind of thing.
There are several concerns thatweighed down that study section.
All of the reviewers kindof said maybe not so much.
(11:08):
The ones in the middle and the middlecan be anywhere from this score of
about a 20 down to about a 40 ish score.
That kind of range, we actually look atevery single one of those applications
and we look at them carefully with theprogram director, which is why it's a
good idea to contact your program officerafter you get your summary statement.
(11:28):
And what we're looking for is, is thisgoing to be a project that is really
going to be good for the trainee, it'sgoing to be good for this science and
things are going to work out so thatat the end of this project, the trainee
is going to be one step farther towardbecoming an independent investigator.
Um, and so we look at, we look at avariety of things, but it's really those,
(11:51):
those basics is, is the trainee reallythe strongest trainee for this project?
Is the project a great projectthat's going to succeed and
is the environment supportive?
And in that sense we arelooking at the training plan.
We're looking to make sure that yourtraining plan isn't something that's
just generic that everybody just getsstomped into, but it actually is for you.
(12:11):
Um, and so we look at all of those things.
Amelie Gubitz (12:14):
Yeah.
And that's sometimes when weactually then ask the applicant
to send us an informal rebuttal.
It's a document that won't bepresented to our advisory council.
It usually also doesn't go to seniorleadership, but it just helps us as
program director to see how you think youcan address the identified weaknesses.
And sometimes it may just be anoversight or grantsmanship issue.
(12:38):
And sometimes, um, you know, itmay require additional preliminary
data on new experiments and a moresubstantial change to the project.
It just then helps us evaluate whetherwe can push this forward and make sure
that, um, you know, the research canstart sooner or whether it may be a
good idea to sort of take a step backand craft a stronger reapplication.
Jim Gnadt (13:01):
Yeah.
I think Amelie has a reallyimportant point there.
What's most useful for us is tounderstand what you would do in response
to the concerns of the reviewer.
So a list of complaints about thereviewers is actually not very useful.
Even an iterated list of justrebuttals, while they sometimes may
(13:22):
be valid rebuttals, really what's mostvaluable is what are you going to do
about the concerns that the reviewershad, uh, either in terms of giving
us some ammunition to promote yourproject in this council round or to
think about what changes you wouldmake if you need to write a revision.
Marguerite (13:39):
So sort of to Lyn's point before, it may be best that after
you get your summary statement, you writeall the nasty things you didn't like
about the review on a piece of paperand then you crumble it and throw it
in the garbage and then get to thinkingabout what are some ways that you know,
again, as to your point, Jim, of howyou're actually going to address this
and make your training plan better.
(13:59):
I think one thing our audienceshould really appreciate is that this
isn't just about getting funding.
It's also about really consideringwhat your training plan is going to
be and how you want to proceed inyour career because you're going to
have to do this over and over again.
How am I going to grow?
How am I going to become better?
And I think just even sometimes inour personal lives it's nice to have a
little bit of plan of action and is thisreally going to get me to the next step?
Lauren Ullrich (14:22):
Right, right.
I think trainees might be surprisedby how much of the conversation
that we have is centered aroundwhat's best for the trainee.
Marguerite Matthews (14:28):
Yes.
Lauren Ull (14:29):
and like whether the weaknesses that reviewers identified
are going to be things that are reallygoing to hurt the trainee: it's not a
good mentorship situation; the project isnot going to set them up well for their
postdoc or their junior faculty position;like, a lot of the conversation in the
training realm is centered around that.
And so it's not just that we don'twant to give you money, [laughter]
(14:49):
it's that we don't want to enablea bad situation to continue.
And if we have something in writingfrom you and your advisor about what's
going to be changed, then that givesus a lot more leeway to say like,"Hey,
you said you were going to do this forthis trainee" and it lets us help you.
Um, and so, you know, in that vein, ifan applicant gets asked to respond to a
(15:12):
critique from a review, are there certaindo's or don'ts that they should consider
when putting together this response?
Lyn Jakema (15:21):
Well, I think Amelie touched on one thing earlier, which is,
um, these criterion scores really onlyprovide you with information about what
kinds of concerns drove those reviewersto come up with an impact score.
So I wouldn't spend any time averaging ordividing or multiplying those scores out.
(15:41):
Um, because you can go crazy alittle bit and you won't come up with
the magic number at the other end.
Um, and I think Jim touched on, try andlook at this as a critique or concerns
of the document that you sent them.
These are not critiques of you or youradvisor or the day of the week, but
they're just the document in front ofyou in comparison to the others that the,
(16:06):
that the reviewers have seen, um, havesome areas that need to be addressed.
And so if you can, if you can stayobjective in terms of evaluating the
critique of the document as such, Ithink that it helps calm down some of
those emotive responses that we all have.
Amelie Gubitz (16:22):
Yeah, I think the reviewers are really well-intended
and really what they are trying to dois help you strengthen the project.
And I think especially for the traininggrant, the criteria and scores,
they are helpful to tell you whetherthere may be some weaknesses in the
research plan or maybe some weaknesses,more sort of in the training career
development aspects of the application.
(16:43):
So that will help you if you decide towork on a resubmission, you know, to sort
of figure out which parts of the proposalneed a little bit more work and need to
be strengthened or if it doesn't need aresubmission, you still should sort of
take that criticism to heart and see,even if I get the grant now, this is
something that I really should be workingtowards and sort of be very aware of.
(17:07):
Especially with for instance,career development activities,
which are very addressable.
Jim Gnadt (17:12):
Yeah, it's all about constructive critique.
Lyn Jakeman (17:14):
I think another" do," cause we did some "don'ts,"
but I think another"do" is, isdo talk to your program officer.
Um, sometimes the written wordisn't everything and sometimes
the program officer can help youinterpret in the context of other
reviews that, that program officerhas read about what this might really
mean, um, for your application.
Amelie Gubitz (17:35):
Yeah, I think phone calls are great and
that's really part of our job.
In a way we almost expect it that weget a lot of calls after study sections
and sometimes we even reach out to theapplicants to, "Hey can we set up a
call?" But be proactive to send us a line.
Then we'll set up a phone call and that'sprobably the best and fastest way to sort
of make sense of the summary statement,but also always have your advisor in the
(17:59):
loop so they sort of understand how wesee things and how they can help you.
Marguerite (18:04):
And this meeting is generally more of a processing session and
not really a, "you're going to get answersfrom the program officer of whether or not
you're going to get funded" or"you shouldand shouldn't do these changes." It really
should just be an opportunity to sortof debrief and get more clarity and not
expect to get any hard and fast answers.
Lauren Ullrich (18:23):
Right.
Amelie Gubit (18:23):
Well we don't know either, especially for the applications
that are sort of in the gray zone.
We don't know what our training office,what their pay plan will look like
and how many funds are available.
So it's a little bit of a process andit certainly takes a couple of weeks.
Lyn Jakeman (18:37):
Yeah.
And there's other things to be thinkingabout, especially with the training grant
and, and that is thinking about in theprocess of considering whether or not
to resubmit a proposal that's in thegray zone and thinking about how that
fits into your training plan as Jim wassaying, in terms of the timeline as well.
There are some cutoffs in time, um, forthe F31s, for the F32s, for the K99s,
(19:04):
and if you're watching all of thosetimelines, it may make more sense just to
move on to another project; it may makesense to be really seriously considering
a resubmission even if you don't knowyet if your grant's going to get funded.
Amelie Gubitz (19:17):
Yeah.
But sometimes it does mean thatyou may actually have to switch the
funding opportunity announcements,especially for the F32s, you have
to apply very early during yourpostdoctoral training or even beforehand.
So by the time you've gone throughreview, you sort of may have moved
out of the eligibility window.
But it doesn't mean that there areno routes for funding for you because
(19:40):
we have other grant activitiesthat'll allow you then to apply to.
So you may switch to aK01 or other mechanisms.
So there's always a solution, but that'swhen it's good to talk to us and also
colleagues in our training office.
Lauren Ullrich (19:55):
Right.
We can always help you out.
Um, and so if an applicant gets askedto respond to the critiques, does
that mean that they will get funded?
Jim Gnadt (20:04):
No.
[laughter] The decision to get fundedis made at the time that advice is
given by council to the Institutedirectors to make a final decision
on who gets paid and who doesn't.
But talking to your program officerand talking to your mentor and advisors
is useful to give us ammunition abouthow we will deliberate about your
(20:26):
project and how you're thinking andresponding to the reviewers' critiques.
Um, but the, the final decisions,uh, are made by council and
the Institute directors and thedirector of the training program.
And that will come later at council time.
Lauren (20:44):
Yeah, it all takes time.
Marguerite Matthews (20:45):
Right.
Lyn J (20:46):
This is true not just for fellowships, but throughout your career.
Um, anytime that a program directorreaches out and asks you for a response
to the review, all it mean (20:55):
we'd like a little bit more information.
That's really all it is.
And we may be specific about what we'relooking for or we may be very vague
about what we're looking for, but, butit just means we need more information.
Marguerite Matthews (21:10):
Yup.
So speaking of Council, we willbe talking a little more in depth
about the council review process.
And in a previous episode we talkedabout the scientific peer review process.
But can you all explain to our listenersthe difference between the scientific peer
review and the advisory council review?
Amelie Gubitz (21:27):
I mean, the peer reviewers will look at the actual full
application and the experts in the field,the will probably have quite a bit of
expertise in reviewing grants over theyear and they meet at study section.
The advisory council it's sort of asecondary review panel, it's higher level.
(21:47):
And one thing to note is that notall grant activities actually go
to our advisory council meeting.
So, for instance, fellowshipapplications, the F31s, the funding
decisions get made in house beforethe actual advisory council meeting.
But um, the career developmentgrant activities, they typically
(22:09):
go to, um, council meeting.
It doesn't mean that every applicationgets discussed, but certainly
they go to council considerations.
But the council members will onlyhave access to the summary statement.
So it's a second tier review andsort of higher level, more strategic.
They are not going to sort oflook at individual applications.
They won't have access to them andthey make decisions based on the
(22:32):
input from the initial peer reviewers.
Jim G (22:36):
Yeah, I look at it as the peer review are the experts in your
scientific domain and in training andthe specifics of your training program.
I know what I'm looking for when Italk to, uh, applicants afterwards
is, um, how are you respondingto the summary statement and the
advice and the constructive critiqueyou got from the peer review?
(23:01):
And, and you know, it's, it'svery nice to see people who have
very productive responses to that.
But I don't make decisionsabout the expertise.
That's what the peer review is about.
Lauren U (23:13):
Is there anything else that you wish applicants understood
about this process or any commonmisconceptions that you want to clear up?
Ameli (23:19):
I mean, I think one thing to note is that it is a very competitive
process and I think it's sort of my keyadvice is always don't get discouraged.
And I think perseverance often helpsand I think it's important as an
applicant to embrace going throughthe peer review process and always
view it as a learning opportunity.
Even if the outcome isn't exactlywhat you were looking for, you're
(23:42):
still going to learn a lot from goingthrough the process, getting the
critique from the peer reviewers andthen strategizing how to move forward.
I think both for um, a really good summarystatement or for some that sort of picked
on some weaknesses, you always learn fromthe process and never take it personal.
Lauren Ullrich (24:01):
All right, well thank you all for
sharing your wisdom today.
Um, so can we ask each of youfor one last piece of parting
advice for our future applicants?
Jim Gnadt (24:12):
Be persistent.
It's, this is a very competitive field.
You've chosen one of the most competitiveand difficult fields there is to, to join.
Um, but those who are persistent,those who are good, you will succeed.
Just keep at it.
L (24:30):
If I were to give some advice to trainees and to young investigators,
persistence definitely plays a role.
I would also say that you're, you'rerunning a marathon and not a sprint.
Um, and what I mean by that is thatif you look at any grant deadline
(24:51):
and put it on your calendar and startworrying about it as if it was an
undergraduate exam and kind of cram thenight before that your results probably
aren't going to be what you hoped for.
But one of the best things to dois to consider that you've taken
on a career in writing, really.
And the science is almostsecondary to the writing.
(25:11):
So develop a style, a pattern where youwrite every day, a little bit every day.
And then when you're doing a grantapplication, you're building on
the things that you do every day.
And it's much easier than if it's abig mountain that you have to overcome
and the stress of procrastination.
Amelie Gubitz (25:28):
Yeah, I think Lyn, that's a really good point.
And certainly putting the applicationstogether, it's not an easy task and it
takes time and it has to mature and youhave to sort of get a lot of support
from your advisors and other colleagues.
But even in before you submit thegrant, don't hesitate to reach
out to program directors at NINDS.
We are, you know, happy to sort ofbrainstorm about a project idea,
(25:51):
to help you identify the right um,funding opportunity announcement.
And we oftentimes take a peek atdraft specific aims page and we
can give you a little bit feedback.
And sometimes there are also overlappingareas of research, so it may not
always be that, you know, NINDSis the only Institute at NIH that
(26:12):
may support that type of research.
So I think it's a good idea to actuallysort of find out who the program director
at NINDS would be for your program area.
And you can contact us and we cangive you a little bit of advice
and we are certainly happy to lookat a draft specific aims page.
Lyn Jakeman (26:30):
and don't be afraid of your program directors.
We are so lucky in this country thatwe have a system at the NIH where
program directors can reach out andbe your advocate and your friend.
Um, and we've seen a of applications.
So we come with a greatdeal of experience.
Um, and we're really happy to help younavigate that whole confusing process.
(26:53):
We're here to help.
Lauren Ullr (26:54):
That's our tagline.
Marguerite Matthews (26:56):
Yes.
We are here to help.
Lauren Ullrich (26:58):
And Marguerite, do you have any advice?
Marguerite Matthe (27:00):
Yeah, I think that getting this feedback is a great
opportunity to have an attitude checkand have, um, an outlook check and
really think about what it is thatyou want from this whole process
that isn't just about dollar signs.
Um, you know, we certainly wouldlike to see your work get funded.
Um, but we also want you to be goodscientists and, um, have a plan.
(27:25):
And so sometimes your plan wasn't thatwell put together or maybe your best,
um, just wasn't quite good enough.
Um, but that doesn't mean that therearen't opportunities for growth.
And so hopefully you will take all ofthis advice and be able to, you know, pull
yourself up out of despair if that's thecase for you or if you're already on cloud
(27:45):
nine, stay up there, um, and hopefullyhelp other people as they tackle this.
But it's, it doesn't haveto be the end of the world.
And, um, it's not necessarilyabout building thick skin, it's
just about thinking about howyou're going to um, try again.
What about you Lauren?
Laure (28:01):
I mean, I think to follow up on that, the summary statement is
just an additional perspective from,you know, three to five additional
people that have read your application.
And like I think we touched on earlierand have spoken about in earlier episodes,
this is not an indictment of you.
This is merely an evaluation of theapplication that you have put together.
(28:22):
And really think critically aboutthe reviews, discuss it with your
mentor, discuss it with your peers.
Sometimes the reviewers get it wrong andthat's something to have a conversation
with your program director about, butthey didn't get everything wrong, right?
So before you have the conversationwith your program director, you want
to have that debrief with other peopleat your institution to say like,
(28:46):
okay, these critiques are valid, thisone for real--I don't agree with.
So let's make a plan for how we're goingto address this in the future application.
And then that's something you candiscuss with the program director.
But just think about it as, asgetting some outside perspective,
which is always valuable.
So that's all we have time fortoday on Building Up the Nerve.
(29:13):
So thank you again to our guests thisweek for sharing their expertise and
thank you to program director BobRiddle for our theme song and music.
We'll see you next time when wetalk about the Council process.
You can find past episodes of thispodcast and many more grant application
resources on the web at ninds.nih.gov.
Marguerite Matthe (29:33):
Email us with any 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
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.
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.
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.