January 24, 2020 • 37 mins
Learn about NINDS Council and their role in the grants process from Dr. Bob Finkelstein, Director of the Division of Extramural Activities, and Kelly Baker, Committee Management Officer.
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/558574/2505532-episode-8-council-review
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Lauren (00:02):
Welcome to the National Institute of Neurological Disorders
and Stroke's, Building Up the Nerve,a podcast for neuroscience trainees
that takes you through the life cycleof a grant from idea to award at NINDS
with the people who make it happen.
We know that applying for NIH fundingcan be daunting, but we're here to help.
It's our job.
Hi, I'm Lauren Ullrich, ascientific program 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 (00:30):
Last episode we discussed program review and recommendation.
Today we're going to talk about thenational advisory neurological disorders
and stroke council and that process.
Marguerite Matth (00:40):
And as always, we want to remind you that everything
we talk about may only be relevant forNINDS and if you're applying to different
NIH institutes or centers, it's best tocheck with them about their policies.
Lauren (00:56):
Joining us today are Dr Bob Finkelstein, director of the division
of extramural activities, and Kelly Baker,committee management officer for NINDS.
So let's start with introductions.
Bob Finkelstein (01:09):
Hi Lauren.
Well as you said, I am the director of thedivision of extramural activities, which
means I oversee the entire grants process.
In a month or so will be my 20thanniversary of working at NINDS.
I started as a programdirector for about five years.
And then I transitionedinto my current job.
(01:30):
I was a professor in the neurosciencedepartment at the University
of Pennsylvania medical school.
I had actually just gotten tenure thereand renewed all my grants, but I decided
I wanted to do something different, whichwas one of the best decisions I ever made.
Lauren Ullrich (01:47):
And a hobby or passion outside of work?
Bob Finkelstein (01:50):
Um, I have a lot of hobbies.
I have, I would saymusic is a major hobby.
I play piano and guitar.
I've lately I've been sortof playing in a rock band.
Lauren Ullrich (02:01):
What's it, what's it called?
Marguer (02:02):
Yeah, what's it called?
Bob Finkelstein (02:02):
Well, we don't really have a name and attendance
is kind of spotty, but it's allpeople kind of in my age range.
So it's...
Lauren Ull (02:09):
I feel like the name is the most important part though.
Marguerite Matthews (02:11):
I agree
Bob Finkels (02:12):
We'll work on that.
Lauren Ullrich (02:14):
And Kelly?
Kelly (02:15):
Um, so I am the committee management officer at NINDS and I've been
doing council related stuff for about 10years, a little over 10 years at NINDS.
Um, before that I was, um, workingin the scientific review branch
at NIMH for a couple of years.
And before that I was notin the federal government.
Lauren Ull (02:37):
And, uh, one of your hobbies or passions outside of work?
Kelly Baker (02:40):
I like to be outside, so I like to run,
hike, walk, that kind of stuff.
Bob Fink (02:45):
Kelly is being modest.
Kelly is an ultra marathoner.
Lauren Ullrich (02:49):
Oh wow.
Marguerite Matthews (02:50):
I wish
Bob Fi (02:51):
A very impressive runner
Kelly (02:52):
So I guess I love to run?
Lauren Ullrich (02:54):
I think you have to, to do that.
Okay, well let's get started then.
So if you guys just want to sort ofset the stage and talk about what
is the role of council in this wholeprocess of applying for a grant award?
Bob Finkelstein (03:12):
So council performs a variety of functions.
So council is--the most importantfunction is that it's called
the second level of review.
So, as most of you know, when you submita grant application, it goes to a study
section where it's--merit is assessedand that's the first level of review.
Council is the second level beforewe can fund any of these grants that
(03:33):
needs to be approved by council.
So that's the core function, but ithas many other functions as well.
We bring important policy questions tocouncil and they advise us on what to do,
whether it be about grant mechanisms ortraining or many other different topics.
And they're also what's calleda FACA group, which perhaps
(03:54):
Kelly can talk about next.
But ultimately council advises theNINDS director on what to fund.
It's, it's an, they don'treally make decisions.
They make recommendations to the directorof the Institute with whom the buck stops.
Lauren Ullrich (04:10):
So do you want to talk about FACA?
Kelly Baker (04:12):
Sure.
So that is the federal advisorycommittee act and it's all of our
laws and regulations for running anytype of committee in the government.
Um, and council is oneof those FACA committees.
We have a lot of rulesthat we have to follow.
And we also--getting into the membershipof council, we have to charter each
(04:34):
one of our committees and that willlay out pretty much all the details
for how that committee operates.
And for council, in our charter, wehave 18 voting scientific members
and two federal ex-officio members.
And for us we've got one from VAand one from department of defense.
And that's all in our charter.
Our 18 scientific members are madeup of 12 people from scientific
(04:58):
institutions and then six peoplewho are members of the public.
So they, all of them are, um, theyhave to be leaders in the field of
neurology, stroke, that kind of stuff.
And our public members have to be,have some type of um, legal background,
economics background, public policybackground, something like that, so.
Bob Finkels (05:20):
And when Kelly said that council has to follow the rules
of FACA, the federal advisory committeeact, that makes it very challenging
to put together a group of councilmembers because not only do they have
to be top scientists or importantmembers of the public with expertise
in neurological and neuroscientificquestions, but we also have to make sure
(05:40):
that we have geographical distribution.
We couldn't, for example, haveall our council members from UCLA
or something like that, so thatwe need geographic distribution.
There's many different parametersthat come into play when we're picking
council members and it's a lot of work.
Kelly does a lot of it.
Um, she's responsible, you know,for organizing this process,
(06:03):
which is a very challenging one.
Lauren U (06:05):
And they can't be, um, standing members of study sections.
Kelly Baker (06:09):
Correct.
There can't be two levels of peer review.
Lauren Ullrich (06:12):
Right.
So that also narrows it down.
Bob Finkelstein (06:14):
Sometimes when we see a really good member of a
study section, we lie in wait untilthey're off the study section.
And then we ask them ifthey'll be on council.
Marguerite Matt (06:22):
Very strategic.
Can you paint a picture for us, whatthe council meeting actually looks like?
Where's it held?
Who can attend?
Um, what's discussedin the actual meeting?
Bob Fink (06:33):
That's a big question.
Why don't I talk about sortof the outlines of what
happens in a council meeting?
Uh, so we've experimented with variousdifferent formats; for a while we had a
one day format, now we have a basicallya day and a half format and it's held
in, on the NIH campus in a, in a roomthat can accommodate a lot of people.
(06:57):
And essentially it's divided into twoparts in terms of the NINDS council.
First is the open session andthen there's the closed session.
And in the open session, whichthe public is welcome to attend.
Sometimes we run out of roomand there's places where they
can listen in an overflow area.
But in the open session we discussimportant policy matters as I mentioned
(07:22):
earlier, that we want council's input on.
And it's not just whenwe want their input.
A lot of times council members wouldsay, you know, "I'd really like to
discuss..." whatever the question is.
So we discuss important questions.
Sometimes there's presentations fromour staff to sort of tell council
how we're currently doing things.
Um, so we have different associatedirectors, we have an associate
(07:44):
director for clinical researchand associate director for
translational research, et cetera.
And sometimes they'll make presentationsdiscussing how we decide what grants
to fund, what applications to fund.
So, so that's the open session
Lauren U (08:00):
and that's video cast.
Bob Fink (08:02):
And that's video cast.
You can tune in.
It's incredibly exciting viewing.
Kelly Baker (08:04):
[laughter]
Lauren Ullrich (08:04):
Now, don't lie to our listeners.
Bob Finkelst (08:07):
Oh well, actually, you know, it's funny, it can get
a little dull sometimes, a littlewonky sometimes, but sometimes
it can be incredibly interesting.
There are moments of, you know,
Laure (08:17):
No, it's true, it's true.
Bob Finkels (08:19):
So, so then we move into the closed session where the
members of the public need to leave.
Um, so in the closed session welook at specific grant applications.
Um, so for example, if there's a clinicaltrial that's going to cost millions of
dollars a year that we really want inputon, even though it got a really excellent
(08:40):
score, we'll discuss that in detail inthe closed session of the council meeting.
But we discuss many otherdifferent types of grants.
Um, so do you want to talk, you haveanything more to say about that Kelly?
Kelly B (08:53):
Just for setting up the meeting from like a logistical standpoint,
you know, we do conference roomsthat are government conference rooms.
We reserve them years in advance, aboutthree years out and there's only a
certain number of conference rooms at NIHthat can accommodate council meetings.
So a lot of the ICS have counsel aroundthe same dates and we're all vying
for those same dates in the same spot.
(09:13):
So that's a little bit of a processthat my office has to deal with.
Um, and then it's just, that's it.
Lauren (09:22):
And council meets three times a year, right, with every cycle.
Kelly Baker (09:26):
Correct.
Lauren Ullrich (09:26):
So how does council make decisions?
Obviously you guys aren't on council,but having seen and sort of heard
the deliberations that go on,what are the sort of big picture
things that they're thinking aboutwhen they are making decisions?
Bob Finkelst (09:44):
Um, well I, I just want to be a little picky here.
So they don't really make decisionsthey make recommendations.
Lauren Ullrich (09:50):
Recommendations.
Bob Finkelstein (09:50):
and that is an important difference.
However, I don't want to in any wayminimize their role because when council
suggests something, we usually do it orat least consider doing it very seriously.
So, um, and then the other caveatis that a lot of times council will
have discussions in the open session.
We're not really allowed to discusspolicy issues in the closed session,
(10:11):
um, because there's a fresh airin government or whatever it's
called, where if we're discussing--
Kelly Baker (10:18):
Oh government in the sunshine act
Bob Finkelstein (10:19):
government in the sunshine, fresh air,
sunshine, it's all the same to me.
Kelly Baker (10:22):
It goes with FACA.
Marguerite Matthews (10:22):
Of course.
Kelly, knows that, she's like I havefresh air when I run, that's what I know
Bob Finkelstein (10:26):
To be honest, I should know that phrase
too, but I'm easily confused.
So, um, sometimes they'll just havediscussions which don't necessarily
involve making recommendations.
We'll discuss an issue and we may say,well, we really need to discuss this more.
Um, the, the way they make decisionsis, is kind of what you might
(10:46):
expect that any, how any group wouldmake...recommendations is the word.
So, for example, let's say we're tryingto decide, um, let's say one of our staff
proposes a concept for a new initiative.
So one of our staff will present theidea to council, just the concept, not
the details because until it's approved,we don't flesh it out with details.
(11:08):
And then council will discuss it andsometimes there will be some back
and forth where they will ask us foradditional information and they'll
discuss it and, and raise pros and cons.
Sometimes we realize that somethingwe thought was a good idea, might
not be practical at the present timewhere they might tell us, Oh, you
know, that's already being done inthe extramural community where we
(11:29):
already have enough research on topicX, so they're less enthusiastic.
So it helps us to, to decidewhether these concepts that
we're putting forward make sense.
Now it's worth explaining, and this isI think, important for people to know,
that when our staff suggests particularinitiatives, for example, RFAs, which
(11:50):
I think many of you know what thoseare: requests for applications that
involve set aside funds, we don't reallyjust cook these up in our offices.
So NINDS interacts extensivelywith the outside community.
We have workshops and manyother kinds of meetings.
So for example, if we had a workshopon um, Parkinson's disease and somebody
(12:13):
suggested at the workshop, uh, that reallywe need new imaging modalities to look
at the brain of Parkinsonian patients.
Um, so there'll be a lot of discussionabout that internally, some ideas will
come up, we'll present them at councilas new concepts that we're trying to
decide whether to move forward on.
So then just to oversimplify, whateverthe issue that we're raising, whether
(12:37):
it's a policy question or a specificinitiative, council discusses it weighs
in on it, and in some cases they vote.
So the case that I just brought up,if we literally want to do an RFA,
request for new grant applications,that involves several million
dollars of set aside funds, weuse council for concept clearance.
(12:59):
So we ask them to formallyvote as to whether that idea
should move forward or not.
Now again, this occursin the open session.
The public can watch this,listen to the discussion.
Um, so you know, so they'lleither discuss things and make
recommendations for further discussions.
They'll discuss things and say, wereally think you should do that.
(13:20):
And they may vote on that recommendation.
One thing I didn't mention is thatalthough these are all recommendations
to the Institute director by council,there's one thing that council can do
unequivocally that we can't change.
If they vote against us doing something,whether it be a new policy initiative
in the open session or against fundinga particular grant application, in
(13:43):
the closed session we cannot fund it.
No matter how good we might thinkan idea or an application is, if
council, literally the majorityof council members vote that we
shouldn't do it, it cannot be done.
We could potentially bringit back at a future date.
But that's the one recommendationthat is binding on the Institute.
So the short answer is that council,like any group, um, and it's often
(14:07):
a very lively group, I can tell youfrom past experience, they discuss
things and um, there's back and forth.
And we get lots of different perspectiveson everything that we discussed,
which I think is a good thing.
It makes the discussions a lot richer.
Marguerite Matthews (14:21):
How does NINDS determine the payline?
How do we set, um, a standard forwhat will get funded and what doesn't?
Bob Finkelstein (14:29):
Okay.
So there's two questionsembedded in what you're saying.
One is how we set the payline and the other is what
we do with it once we set it.
So let me talk about the first question.
Setting the pay line.
So setting the pay line is anincredibly important decision.
So for example, last year the payline was the 16th percentile, which
to over-simplify means that roughly16% of applications will get funded.
(14:52):
It's actually higher than that.
But that's a simplified view.
Um, and one of the reasons it's soimportant is not just because it reflects
the funding rate for applications thatpeople submit, but it also, in the eyes,
I know, of a lot of trainees or professorsin the extramural community or members
of the public is kind of an, um, anindication of how the field is doing.
(15:18):
If our pay line is, for example, theninth percentile, which I remember it
once went down to, that's basically sayingwhen you submit a grant application, you
have, what is it, a one in 11 chance ofgetting it funded, which is not so good to
a young person who's considering whetherto go into, into biomedical research.
So setting the pay lineis important decision.
(15:40):
How do we set it?
Well, obviously we need toknow how much money we have.
So the first step is we needto know what our federal budget
appropriation is, um, from Congressand signed off on by the president.
And that's very tricky because asyou know, there's been a lot of
budget turmoil for some time now.
So sometimes we don't know ourpay line, you know, in time, um,
(16:03):
for a particular council session.
Sometimes we operate under continuingresolutions where Congress essentially
tells us you have as much money asyou had last year, but we don't know
whether that's going to go up or down.
So the first thing we need toknow in setting the pay line is
how much money we have to spend.
Then the next thing, which Ithink a lot of people don't fully
(16:24):
understand is that most of ourmoney is tied up in commitments.
If we give a five year grant award, anR01, a lot of you know what that is.
That means that the, the four out yearsare basically committed, assuming that
reasonable progress is made on the grant.
So at any given time, three quarters ormore of our money is involved, is tied
(16:50):
up in future commitments to grants thatwe've already funded in previous years.
But, um, with the money that'snot yet committed, we call
that our competing budget.
Um, we, that's what thepay line applies to.
So, first of all, we, we make an attemptto keep the pay line as high as we can
for reasons that I said, but there'smany, many other pressures on our budget.
(17:14):
For example, we might have a congressionalmandate to spend money on a particular
disease or a particular scientific area.
Um, we might have, um, any number of otherthings that we're being told to do or
that there was strongly recommended to do.
You know, Congress for example,told us 20 or 30 years ago that we
(17:35):
should fund, um, Parkinson's centers.
They're called Udall centers, uh,which we did and they're, it's a
wonderful initiative, but that meansa certain amount of our money is
spent on those Parkinson's centers.
So with the money that's not alreadycommitted in either out years or committed
to these kinds of initiatives, we lookat it and we make a computation about,
(17:57):
you know, how much we can afford to fund.
And that's essentially whatthe pay line comes from.
Lauren Ullrich (18:03):
And how do we use the payline and what grants
are determined by payline?
Bob Finkelstein (18:10):
Okay.
So not every NIH Institute is the same.
We are more on the side offunding according to the payline.
So we believe that, you know, peerreview is incredibly important.
You know, whether it occurs at NIHcentral through the center of scientific
review or study sections that werun it at NINDS for, for example,
(18:31):
for phase three clinical trials.
So once we set a pay line, let's saythe pay line is the 16th percentile, um,
essentially, to slightly over-simplify,all applications that got a percentile,
we fund according to the pay line.
So if you wrote an R01 application,your score translates into a percentile
(18:52):
of 15, then you will get funded.
If it's 17, you won't.
So we are a, what wecall a payline Institute.
We make the very large majorityof our decisions based on score.
There are other institutesthat don't do things that way.
They may establish a zone, let'ssay, let's say they could afford
(19:12):
to pay up to the 15th percentile.
Some institutes might establish azone between the 10th percentile
and the 20th percentile andthey'll pick and choose about half
the applications from that zone.
That's another interesting model.
And I'm not really arguing for onemodel of the other, but we have
traditionally gone primarily by scores.
And the answer to your questionis that whatever applications are
(19:34):
percentiled, the pay line applies to.
Now this is not true of allthe funding decisions we make.
We don't want to be too rigid andwe don't want to miss opportunities.
So for example, we have what's calledour high program priority process.
So if the pay line is the 16thpercentile, we usually look about 10
(19:54):
percentile points beyond the pay line.
And we look to see if thereare applications which address
important areas that are, forexample, not being funded very much.
So let's say that something is anemerging area and it's struggling a bit
in peer review, we might decide to funda particular application in that area.
(20:18):
Sometimes when we have a congressionalmandate, that will encourage us to fund
some things in response to that mandate.
Or for example, let's say the applicationbrings a new investigator into a field
that, you know, has a limited pool ofinvestigators, a fresh perspective,
we might consider doing that.
Um, but we don't just, it's not justour staff who make this decision.
(20:41):
We nominate applications in that10 point percentile point zone for
high program priority consideration.
And then they're discussed atcouncil and council members can also
nominate applications from that zone.
So we spend some fraction of our moneyon funding things beyond the pay line.
And I'll just mention, just to wrapup the discussion, we don't fund 100%
(21:04):
of applications within the pay line.
If there's some, if we identify somereal red flag for an application, let's
say it's scientifically overlapping withanother application the investigator
already has and that person didn't mentionit, then we're not going to fund that.
Or if there's some ethical issue oryou know, human subjects issue, you
know, we take all this into account,but we do make most of our funding
(21:28):
decisions in accordance with the payline.
Lauren (21:30):
And do you want to talk a little bit about the ESI policy and
how the payline differs if you're an ESI?
Bob Finkelstein (21:37):
Yes.
So an ESI, I don't know if you discussedthis in a previous meeting, but an
ESI is an early stage investigators.
So an ESI is a person, this isan NIH definition, who has never
gotten an R01 grant from NIH orR01, we call it an R01 equivalent.
There are other grants that aresort of like R O ones in terms of
(21:58):
the resources that they give you.
So, and they're within 10 years oftheir, I don't like to use the word
terminal position, but they might bewithin 10 years of completing their
postdoc or completing their residency.
So an early stage investigator, they'venever gotten a major grant from, from NIH.
And, um, the 21st century curesact mandated that we give special
(22:22):
consideration to these investigators.
But we were all doing it long beforethat we believe, you know, we want
new investigators in the system.
It's incredibly important notfor it to continue to be the
same old people getting funded.
So for a long time, uh, for many yearswe've been funding ESI applications
up to about 10 points beyond thepayline and we fund almost all the ESI
(22:46):
applications up to--so if our paylinefor example, is the 15th percentile,
almost every ESI application to the25th percentile would get funded.
Um, I say almost every, if we identify,for example, um, an ESI who we think
is in not in a very good environmentthat will allow them to succeed,
then first we'll look into it a bit.
(23:06):
But if we think they're an environmentwhere it's just not good for them,
um, then we might make an exception.
But generally we fund ESIs up to 10points beyond our percentile pay line.
Marguerite Matthews (23:19):
Is there anything else that you all wish that
our audience understood about theadvisory council or how it's used
to make funding decisions at NINDS?
Bob Finkelstein (23:30):
Well, I think one thing is that they should
understand what a hard job Kelly has.
[laughter]
Kelly (23:33):
Well, I was going to kind of say something not about me, but
um, just all the work that goes intogetting a council meeting done, whether
it's like peer review and then the precouncil meetings and program staff input
and then, you know, afterwards, um, FMBand then our grants management branch.
Um, it's like a well oiled machineand there are so many moving
(23:57):
pieces and it comes together everytime, um, with a lot of hard work.
But I think it's just onepiece of the big puzzle
Bob Finkelstein (24:06):
Organizing and implementing a council meeting is very
complicated, very challenging task.
And like in many other areas oflife, things come up like the night
before the last minute, some--oneof our program officials will say,
Oh, I forgot to tell you this andthen we'll have to scramble and.
Kelly (24:22):
That definitely happens.
Bob Finkelstein (24:22):
We'll have to re-Xerox a hundred page handout
to insert something or whatever.
Um, in terms of what happens at council,I think it is important for people
to know that we mostly go by score.
And not always.
Um, well what I didn't say, Ididn't talk about, and you asked
this, I think what things are notfunded according to the pay line.
(24:45):
So there's a whole large number of grantapplications that don't get percentiled.
So for example, if we do an RFA,um, we don't percentile the grants.
So let's take that as an example.
Let's say we did an RFA on, let's sayit's on a particular disease, it can
also be on an area of basic science.
Um, we, we have a little more,we're a little more flexible
(25:08):
in terms of what we pay.
So if we do an RFA and we want toget sort of a scientific range of
applications funded, um, we mightnot fund exactly in score order.
So let's say we fundedeverything up to a score of 28.
Again, they're not percentiled, butwe noticed that something that got
a score of 33 is really good and itwould be a whole new area of research
(25:33):
that has never been undertaken beforeor like I said, a new investigator
in a field we'll discuss with councilfunding something that would be called
a reach or we might occasionally skip anapplication that we see problems with.
So an RFA is just one example.
Large clinical trials, most clinicaltrials do not get percentiled and
(25:54):
they're not funded automaticallyaccording to the pay line.
If something has human subjectsand is high visibility we're
very careful and do a lot of duediligence before discussing it.
So we discuss virtually every clinicaltrial application that we're considering,
um, funding with council because wewant to make sure that no one is being
treated unethically, for example.
(26:15):
Even it's also true with animalstudies, a lot of those applications
might not be, um, percentiled.
So we do a bunch of initiatives.
We have a category of sort of expensiveor visibility applications that don't get
percentiled and get discussed by council.
And there's a little more flexibility.
It's not a quote unquote automaticdecision the way the payline is.
(26:38):
So, uh, another thing that we do thatdoesn't happen automatically through the
pay line is choosing our Javits awardees.
So quite a while ago we establisheda certain award, the Jacob Javits
award in honor of a distinguishedSenator from New York state.
And these are awards for outstandinginvestigators who've made cutting
(27:03):
edge contributions to neuroscienceand neurology for many, many years.
It's not for new investigators.
Um, so these, the way this works is ifan R01 application comes in and gets a
good score, we look through all thoseR01 applications and we look to see,
find ones that are from investigatorswho we believe are, you know, that good.
(27:26):
And if so, we nominate them for Javitsawards and discuss them with counsel.
A Javits award just means that insteadof getting a four or five year, R01
grant, they get a seven year award.
So we're looking for people who we knowthat even if we extend the grant without
additional peer review, that they havea track record of doing great things.
(27:50):
It's not just that they have to begreat scientists, it's also that they
have to be really model citizens.
So we don't nominate somebodyfor a Javits award if they
never serve on study sections.
Um, we look for people who, you know,play important roles in building the
neuroscience slash neurology community.
So every council round, we consider,uh, usually two or three or sometimes
(28:14):
more Javits nominations and give themto a small pool of investigators.
And it's, it's a real honorwhich we publicize and their
institutions often publicize.
And it's a real vote ofconfidence in these people.
Marguerite Matthews (28:32):
Thank you all for sharing your
wisdom with us today.
Can I ask each of you for one last pieceof parting advice for our listeners?
Bob Finkelstein (28:44):
Well, um, I am often asked by people who are newer
to the system, uh, let's call themtrainees, what my advice is to them.
And I actually do have a piece ofadvice that I believe in very strongly.
So as a preamble, I'll just say thatright now, NIH and NINDS are doing all
(29:07):
kinds of incredibly important initiatives.
So for example, NIH has been given a verylarge amount of money from Congress to, to
do research to combat the opioid epidemic.
So we've started what'scalled the HEAL initiative.
And this is incredibly important.
We're trying to get the bestinvestigators cross the research
spectrum to study pain and lookfor non-addictive pain treatments.
(29:30):
Other institutes at NIHare involved as well.
We have the BRAIN Initiative thatwas started under President Obama.
That's, we're now spending hundreds ofmillions of dollars a year on that is
being allocated to this by Congress.
And finally, there's a lot of moneyfor research on Alzheimer's disease and
related dementias, which is, you know, isreaching the proportions of the national
(29:53):
epidemic and is incredibly important.
So for these kinds of areasand for the RFAs we do, we're
really trying to encourage peopleto work on specific topics.
And I, I, we hope that that happens,but for generic advice to trainees,
my biggest piece of advice is thatyou work on what you want to work on.
(30:16):
Now, there used to be in the 60s uh,a famous--Lauren is laughing at me--
Lauren Ullrich (30:22):
Now you're dating yourself.
[Laughter]
Bob Fink (30:23):
Well, I was, I was two years old, but...Well, a little older.
Okay.
But there used to be in the 60sa very famous man named Joseph
Campbell, who studied mythology,who studied myths and analyzed them.
And he's the one who coined an expressionthat was very popular in the 60s
called "follow your bliss." And heused to encourage people when they're
(30:44):
choosing what job to do or makingmajor decisions to go in the direction
of what they really are interested inand what they think is important to
follow their guts in that direction.
Um, a lot of trainees who I talkto in my job, um, try to figure
out what NINDS is interested inor what NIH is interested in.
(31:06):
They worry, some of them worry thatNIH isn't interested any more in basic
research, which is completely false;we're still extremely committed to
basic research and it does extremelywell in peer review compared to other
types of research, but they're oftentrying to figure out what they should
work on to get a competitive edge.
(31:27):
And my advice is that thatapproach does not work very well.
That the approach, particularlyin the long run, that works the
best is to work on somethingthat you're most interested in.
So for example, if you want to work onspinal cord injury, one of the diseases
or disorders that we cover, of courseyou should work on spinal cord injury.
That's a wonderful way to,to spend your research time.
(31:50):
But if you really want to work on axonguidance, the basic questions of how
nerve cells find their way, for example,in the spinal cord, and you're not
really that interested in in spinal cordinjury, you should work on axon guidance.
You shouldn't sort of pretend inyour application that you're really
working on a medical condition whenyou're, you know, or vice versa.
(32:12):
If you're interested in a disease,you know, you don't need to spin
it as a basic research project.
So, you know, biomedical researchis an absolutely wonderful
career, but a difficult one.
We're just like being a buddingcreative author; you're going
to get lots of rejections.
And the people who succeed in thesystem are the people who persevere,
who write a grant application, maybethe first time they get it, it's
(32:35):
triaged, doesn't even get a score.
There are people who quit at thatstage, but the people who don't quit,
who keep trying are the ones whobecome often the most successful.
So in order to have that kind ofperseverance, it only works if what
you're working on is something you enjoy.
If you're just going through themotions and working on something
that you think NIH is interested inbut you don't find that exciting,
(32:58):
in the long run, your career has ahigh probability of fizzling out.
So I would say, you know, if you canfind out what you really want to work
on, that's a real gift and you shouldstick to your guns and work on it.
Marguerite Matthews (33:13):
Not always try to fit yourself into other
boxes that people have created.
Bob Finkelstein (33:17):
That's right that's right.
I think people on the outside, notjust trainees, but often experienced
investigators, spend too much timetrying to figure out how they can
sort of manipulate the system.
Often if you spent that time onidentifying what you want to work on and
just writing as good an application as youcould, your track record will be better.
Lauren Ullrich (33:36):
Kelly do you have any advice?
Kelly (33:37):
So maybe not necessarily advice, but a helpful tip if anyone's
interested in seeing one of ourcouncil meetings, all of our video
casts for the last, I'd say fiveyears or so, are archived on the
NIH video cast website forever.
So you can always go back and takea look and see what the kinds of
things that we talk about there.
Bob Fin (33:57):
Now the video casts, as Kelly has said, are of the open session,
Kelly Baker (34:01):
Only open session.
Bob Finkelstein (34:02):
The closed session, there's not a recording
of and it's--what happens there isconfidential, for obvious reasons.
Marguerite Matthews (34:07):
Lauren, do you have any advice?
Lauren Ull (34:09):
So I think my advice is to, um, I think I've said this
before, but be an informed citizenand to, you know, check out the agenda
for council, which Kelly will post onthe website before council happens.
And if there's anything thatpiques your interest, tune in
or, or watch the recording.
(34:30):
Because we really do try to betransparent and have the sunshine or
fresh air or whatever it's called.
[laughter]
Kelly Ba (34:40):
We're in the sunshine!
Lauren U (34:40):
And we do that because we want people to know what's going on.
But also we want input from thecommunity and we can't get input from
you if you don't know what's going on.
So I think as part of being a goodcitizen of the neuroscience community
is making sure that you take advantageof the opportunities to be informed.
(35:00):
What about you, Marguerite?
Marguerite Matthews (35:01):
Along those same lines, I think it's important
to appreciate the work that goes in.
Oftentimes, people speak of NH as ifit's some robot place where decisions
are made and nobody cares aboutwhat's going on with the researchers.
And it's very clear from many of thediscussions we've had in previous
podcasts, but also perhaps most sort ofnotably, our council, that people making
(35:26):
recommendations, um, and, and things thatwe will focus on for our funding often
comes from the extramural community.
This may be managed and sort of drivenby the vision of the director and
supporting leadership of each Institute,but really the things that we're trying
to fund and the research that we wantto highlight often comes from you:
(35:48):
from our listeners, from your mentors.
And you will be that, that leader inthe field who may be making decisions.
So try to tune in and just watcha little bit of the discussions
that happen because the things thataffect our listeners are coming from
the people that they work with, thepeople who are at their institutions.
So we are not robots, [laughter]
Bob Finkelstein (36:10):
not
We check that box (36:12):
a robot
Marguerite Matthews (36:13):
We are not robots, we are humans!
And we do really take seriously what theextramural community finds important.
Lauren (36:27):
Well, that's all we have time for today on Building Up the Nerve.
So thank you again to our guests thisweek for sharing their expertise.
And also thank you to programdirector, Dr.Bob Riddle for
our theme song and music.
We'll see you next time when we tackleresubmission of your application.
You can find past episodes of thispodcast and many more grant application
(36:48):
resources on the web at ninds.nih.gov
Marguerite M (36:52):
Email us with your questions at NINDSNervePod@nih.gov.
Be sure to subscribe to the podcast onApple podcasts or your favorite podcast
app so you won't miss an episode.
See you next time.
Welcome to the National Institute of Neurological Disorders
and Stroke's, Building Up the Nerve,a podcast for neuroscience trainees
that takes you through the life cycleof a grant from idea to award at NINDS
with the people who make it happen.
We know that applying for NIH fundingcan be daunting, but we're here to help.
It's our job.
Hi, I'm Lauren Ullrich, ascientific program 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 (00:30):
Last episode we discussed program review and recommendation.
Today we're going to talk about thenational advisory neurological disorders
and stroke council and that process.
Marguerite Matth (00:40):
And as always, we want to remind you that everything
we talk about may only be relevant forNINDS and if you're applying to different
NIH institutes or centers, it's best tocheck with them about their policies.
Lauren (00:56):
Joining us today are Dr Bob Finkelstein, director of the division
of extramural activities, and Kelly Baker,committee management officer for NINDS.
So let's start with introductions.
Bob Finkelstein (01:09):
Hi Lauren.
Well as you said, I am the director of thedivision of extramural activities, which
means I oversee the entire grants process.
In a month or so will be my 20thanniversary of working at NINDS.
I started as a programdirector for about five years.
And then I transitionedinto my current job.
(01:30):
I was a professor in the neurosciencedepartment at the University
of Pennsylvania medical school.
I had actually just gotten tenure thereand renewed all my grants, but I decided
I wanted to do something different, whichwas one of the best decisions I ever made.
Lauren Ullrich (01:47):
And a hobby or passion outside of work?
Bob Finkelstein (01:50):
Um, I have a lot of hobbies.
I have, I would saymusic is a major hobby.
I play piano and guitar.
I've lately I've been sortof playing in a rock band.
Lauren Ullrich (02:01):
What's it, what's it called?
Marguer (02:02):
Yeah, what's it called?
Bob Finkelstein (02:02):
Well, we don't really have a name and attendance
is kind of spotty, but it's allpeople kind of in my age range.
So it's...
Lauren Ull (02:09):
I feel like the name is the most important part though.
Marguerite Matthews (02:11):
I agree
Bob Finkels (02:12):
We'll work on that.
Lauren Ullrich (02:14):
And Kelly?
Kelly (02:15):
Um, so I am the committee management officer at NINDS and I've been
doing council related stuff for about 10years, a little over 10 years at NINDS.
Um, before that I was, um, workingin the scientific review branch
at NIMH for a couple of years.
And before that I was notin the federal government.
Lauren Ull (02:37):
And, uh, one of your hobbies or passions outside of work?
Kelly Baker (02:40):
I like to be outside, so I like to run,
hike, walk, that kind of stuff.
Bob Fink (02:45):
Kelly is being modest.
Kelly is an ultra marathoner.
Lauren Ullrich (02:49):
Oh wow.
Marguerite Matthews (02:50):
I wish
Bob Fi (02:51):
A very impressive runner
Kelly (02:52):
So I guess I love to run?
Lauren Ullrich (02:54):
I think you have to, to do that.
Okay, well let's get started then.
So if you guys just want to sort ofset the stage and talk about what
is the role of council in this wholeprocess of applying for a grant award?
Bob Finkelstein (03:12):
So council performs a variety of functions.
So council is--the most importantfunction is that it's called
the second level of review.
So, as most of you know, when you submita grant application, it goes to a study
section where it's--merit is assessedand that's the first level of review.
Council is the second level beforewe can fund any of these grants that
(03:33):
needs to be approved by council.
So that's the core function, but ithas many other functions as well.
We bring important policy questions tocouncil and they advise us on what to do,
whether it be about grant mechanisms ortraining or many other different topics.
And they're also what's calleda FACA group, which perhaps
(03:54):
Kelly can talk about next.
But ultimately council advises theNINDS director on what to fund.
It's, it's an, they don'treally make decisions.
They make recommendations to the directorof the Institute with whom the buck stops.
Lauren Ullrich (04:10):
So do you want to talk about FACA?
Kelly Baker (04:12):
Sure.
So that is the federal advisorycommittee act and it's all of our
laws and regulations for running anytype of committee in the government.
Um, and council is oneof those FACA committees.
We have a lot of rulesthat we have to follow.
And we also--getting into the membershipof council, we have to charter each
(04:34):
one of our committees and that willlay out pretty much all the details
for how that committee operates.
And for council, in our charter, wehave 18 voting scientific members
and two federal ex-officio members.
And for us we've got one from VAand one from department of defense.
And that's all in our charter.
Our 18 scientific members are madeup of 12 people from scientific
(04:58):
institutions and then six peoplewho are members of the public.
So they, all of them are, um, theyhave to be leaders in the field of
neurology, stroke, that kind of stuff.
And our public members have to be,have some type of um, legal background,
economics background, public policybackground, something like that, so.
Bob Finkels (05:20):
And when Kelly said that council has to follow the rules
of FACA, the federal advisory committeeact, that makes it very challenging
to put together a group of councilmembers because not only do they have
to be top scientists or importantmembers of the public with expertise
in neurological and neuroscientificquestions, but we also have to make sure
(05:40):
that we have geographical distribution.
We couldn't, for example, haveall our council members from UCLA
or something like that, so thatwe need geographic distribution.
There's many different parametersthat come into play when we're picking
council members and it's a lot of work.
Kelly does a lot of it.
Um, she's responsible, you know,for organizing this process,
(06:03):
which is a very challenging one.
Lauren U (06:05):
And they can't be, um, standing members of study sections.
Kelly Baker (06:09):
Correct.
There can't be two levels of peer review.
Lauren Ullrich (06:12):
Right.
So that also narrows it down.
Bob Finkelstein (06:14):
Sometimes when we see a really good member of a
study section, we lie in wait untilthey're off the study section.
And then we ask them ifthey'll be on council.
Marguerite Matt (06:22):
Very strategic.
Can you paint a picture for us, whatthe council meeting actually looks like?
Where's it held?
Who can attend?
Um, what's discussedin the actual meeting?
Bob Fink (06:33):
That's a big question.
Why don't I talk about sortof the outlines of what
happens in a council meeting?
Uh, so we've experimented with variousdifferent formats; for a while we had a
one day format, now we have a basicallya day and a half format and it's held
in, on the NIH campus in a, in a roomthat can accommodate a lot of people.
(06:57):
And essentially it's divided into twoparts in terms of the NINDS council.
First is the open session andthen there's the closed session.
And in the open session, whichthe public is welcome to attend.
Sometimes we run out of roomand there's places where they
can listen in an overflow area.
But in the open session we discussimportant policy matters as I mentioned
(07:22):
earlier, that we want council's input on.
And it's not just whenwe want their input.
A lot of times council members wouldsay, you know, "I'd really like to
discuss..." whatever the question is.
So we discuss important questions.
Sometimes there's presentations fromour staff to sort of tell council
how we're currently doing things.
Um, so we have different associatedirectors, we have an associate
(07:44):
director for clinical researchand associate director for
translational research, et cetera.
And sometimes they'll make presentationsdiscussing how we decide what grants
to fund, what applications to fund.
So, so that's the open session
Lauren U (08:00):
and that's video cast.
Bob Fink (08:02):
And that's video cast.
You can tune in.
It's incredibly exciting viewing.
Kelly Baker (08:04):
[laughter]
Lauren Ullrich (08:04):
Now, don't lie to our listeners.
Bob Finkelst (08:07):
Oh well, actually, you know, it's funny, it can get
a little dull sometimes, a littlewonky sometimes, but sometimes
it can be incredibly interesting.
There are moments of, you know,
Laure (08:17):
No, it's true, it's true.
Bob Finkels (08:19):
So, so then we move into the closed session where the
members of the public need to leave.
Um, so in the closed session welook at specific grant applications.
Um, so for example, if there's a clinicaltrial that's going to cost millions of
dollars a year that we really want inputon, even though it got a really excellent
(08:40):
score, we'll discuss that in detail inthe closed session of the council meeting.
But we discuss many otherdifferent types of grants.
Um, so do you want to talk, you haveanything more to say about that Kelly?
Kelly B (08:53):
Just for setting up the meeting from like a logistical standpoint,
you know, we do conference roomsthat are government conference rooms.
We reserve them years in advance, aboutthree years out and there's only a
certain number of conference rooms at NIHthat can accommodate council meetings.
So a lot of the ICS have counsel aroundthe same dates and we're all vying
for those same dates in the same spot.
(09:13):
So that's a little bit of a processthat my office has to deal with.
Um, and then it's just, that's it.
Lauren (09:22):
And council meets three times a year, right, with every cycle.
Kelly Baker (09:26):
Correct.
Lauren Ullrich (09:26):
So how does council make decisions?
Obviously you guys aren't on council,but having seen and sort of heard
the deliberations that go on,what are the sort of big picture
things that they're thinking aboutwhen they are making decisions?
Bob Finkelst (09:44):
Um, well I, I just want to be a little picky here.
So they don't really make decisionsthey make recommendations.
Lauren Ullrich (09:50):
Recommendations.
Bob Finkelstein (09:50):
and that is an important difference.
However, I don't want to in any wayminimize their role because when council
suggests something, we usually do it orat least consider doing it very seriously.
So, um, and then the other caveatis that a lot of times council will
have discussions in the open session.
We're not really allowed to discusspolicy issues in the closed session,
(10:11):
um, because there's a fresh airin government or whatever it's
called, where if we're discussing--
Kelly Baker (10:18):
Oh government in the sunshine act
Bob Finkelstein (10:19):
government in the sunshine, fresh air,
sunshine, it's all the same to me.
Kelly Baker (10:22):
It goes with FACA.
Marguerite Matthews (10:22):
Of course.
Kelly, knows that, she's like I havefresh air when I run, that's what I know
Bob Finkelstein (10:26):
To be honest, I should know that phrase
too, but I'm easily confused.
So, um, sometimes they'll just havediscussions which don't necessarily
involve making recommendations.
We'll discuss an issue and we may say,well, we really need to discuss this more.
Um, the, the way they make decisionsis, is kind of what you might
(10:46):
expect that any, how any group wouldmake...recommendations is the word.
So, for example, let's say we're tryingto decide, um, let's say one of our staff
proposes a concept for a new initiative.
So one of our staff will present theidea to council, just the concept, not
the details because until it's approved,we don't flesh it out with details.
(11:08):
And then council will discuss it andsometimes there will be some back
and forth where they will ask us foradditional information and they'll
discuss it and, and raise pros and cons.
Sometimes we realize that somethingwe thought was a good idea, might
not be practical at the present timewhere they might tell us, Oh, you
know, that's already being done inthe extramural community where we
(11:29):
already have enough research on topicX, so they're less enthusiastic.
So it helps us to, to decidewhether these concepts that
we're putting forward make sense.
Now it's worth explaining, and this isI think, important for people to know,
that when our staff suggests particularinitiatives, for example, RFAs, which
(11:50):
I think many of you know what thoseare: requests for applications that
involve set aside funds, we don't reallyjust cook these up in our offices.
So NINDS interacts extensivelywith the outside community.
We have workshops and manyother kinds of meetings.
So for example, if we had a workshopon um, Parkinson's disease and somebody
(12:13):
suggested at the workshop, uh, that reallywe need new imaging modalities to look
at the brain of Parkinsonian patients.
Um, so there'll be a lot of discussionabout that internally, some ideas will
come up, we'll present them at councilas new concepts that we're trying to
decide whether to move forward on.
So then just to oversimplify, whateverthe issue that we're raising, whether
(12:37):
it's a policy question or a specificinitiative, council discusses it weighs
in on it, and in some cases they vote.
So the case that I just brought up,if we literally want to do an RFA,
request for new grant applications,that involves several million
dollars of set aside funds, weuse council for concept clearance.
(12:59):
So we ask them to formallyvote as to whether that idea
should move forward or not.
Now again, this occursin the open session.
The public can watch this,listen to the discussion.
Um, so you know, so they'lleither discuss things and make
recommendations for further discussions.
They'll discuss things and say, wereally think you should do that.
(13:20):
And they may vote on that recommendation.
One thing I didn't mention is thatalthough these are all recommendations
to the Institute director by council,there's one thing that council can do
unequivocally that we can't change.
If they vote against us doing something,whether it be a new policy initiative
in the open session or against fundinga particular grant application, in
(13:43):
the closed session we cannot fund it.
No matter how good we might thinkan idea or an application is, if
council, literally the majorityof council members vote that we
shouldn't do it, it cannot be done.
We could potentially bringit back at a future date.
But that's the one recommendationthat is binding on the Institute.
So the short answer is that council,like any group, um, and it's often
(14:07):
a very lively group, I can tell youfrom past experience, they discuss
things and um, there's back and forth.
And we get lots of different perspectiveson everything that we discussed,
which I think is a good thing.
It makes the discussions a lot richer.
Marguerite Matthews (14:21):
How does NINDS determine the payline?
How do we set, um, a standard forwhat will get funded and what doesn't?
Bob Finkelstein (14:29):
Okay.
So there's two questionsembedded in what you're saying.
One is how we set the payline and the other is what
we do with it once we set it.
So let me talk about the first question.
Setting the pay line.
So setting the pay line is anincredibly important decision.
So for example, last year the payline was the 16th percentile, which
to over-simplify means that roughly16% of applications will get funded.
(14:52):
It's actually higher than that.
But that's a simplified view.
Um, and one of the reasons it's soimportant is not just because it reflects
the funding rate for applications thatpeople submit, but it also, in the eyes,
I know, of a lot of trainees or professorsin the extramural community or members
of the public is kind of an, um, anindication of how the field is doing.
(15:18):
If our pay line is, for example, theninth percentile, which I remember it
once went down to, that's basically sayingwhen you submit a grant application, you
have, what is it, a one in 11 chance ofgetting it funded, which is not so good to
a young person who's considering whetherto go into, into biomedical research.
So setting the pay lineis important decision.
(15:40):
How do we set it?
Well, obviously we need toknow how much money we have.
So the first step is we needto know what our federal budget
appropriation is, um, from Congressand signed off on by the president.
And that's very tricky because asyou know, there's been a lot of
budget turmoil for some time now.
So sometimes we don't know ourpay line, you know, in time, um,
(16:03):
for a particular council session.
Sometimes we operate under continuingresolutions where Congress essentially
tells us you have as much money asyou had last year, but we don't know
whether that's going to go up or down.
So the first thing we need toknow in setting the pay line is
how much money we have to spend.
Then the next thing, which Ithink a lot of people don't fully
(16:24):
understand is that most of ourmoney is tied up in commitments.
If we give a five year grant award, anR01, a lot of you know what that is.
That means that the, the four out yearsare basically committed, assuming that
reasonable progress is made on the grant.
So at any given time, three quarters ormore of our money is involved, is tied
(16:50):
up in future commitments to grants thatwe've already funded in previous years.
But, um, with the money that'snot yet committed, we call
that our competing budget.
Um, we, that's what thepay line applies to.
So, first of all, we, we make an attemptto keep the pay line as high as we can
for reasons that I said, but there'smany, many other pressures on our budget.
(17:14):
For example, we might have a congressionalmandate to spend money on a particular
disease or a particular scientific area.
Um, we might have, um, any number of otherthings that we're being told to do or
that there was strongly recommended to do.
You know, Congress for example,told us 20 or 30 years ago that we
(17:35):
should fund, um, Parkinson's centers.
They're called Udall centers, uh,which we did and they're, it's a
wonderful initiative, but that meansa certain amount of our money is
spent on those Parkinson's centers.
So with the money that's not alreadycommitted in either out years or committed
to these kinds of initiatives, we lookat it and we make a computation about,
(17:57):
you know, how much we can afford to fund.
And that's essentially whatthe pay line comes from.
Lauren Ullrich (18:03):
And how do we use the payline and what grants
are determined by payline?
Bob Finkelstein (18:10):
Okay.
So not every NIH Institute is the same.
We are more on the side offunding according to the payline.
So we believe that, you know, peerreview is incredibly important.
You know, whether it occurs at NIHcentral through the center of scientific
review or study sections that werun it at NINDS for, for example,
(18:31):
for phase three clinical trials.
So once we set a pay line, let's saythe pay line is the 16th percentile, um,
essentially, to slightly over-simplify,all applications that got a percentile,
we fund according to the pay line.
So if you wrote an R01 application,your score translates into a percentile
(18:52):
of 15, then you will get funded.
If it's 17, you won't.
So we are a, what wecall a payline Institute.
We make the very large majorityof our decisions based on score.
There are other institutesthat don't do things that way.
They may establish a zone, let'ssay, let's say they could afford
(19:12):
to pay up to the 15th percentile.
Some institutes might establish azone between the 10th percentile
and the 20th percentile andthey'll pick and choose about half
the applications from that zone.
That's another interesting model.
And I'm not really arguing for onemodel of the other, but we have
traditionally gone primarily by scores.
And the answer to your questionis that whatever applications are
(19:34):
percentiled, the pay line applies to.
Now this is not true of allthe funding decisions we make.
We don't want to be too rigid andwe don't want to miss opportunities.
So for example, we have what's calledour high program priority process.
So if the pay line is the 16thpercentile, we usually look about 10
(19:54):
percentile points beyond the pay line.
And we look to see if thereare applications which address
important areas that are, forexample, not being funded very much.
So let's say that something is anemerging area and it's struggling a bit
in peer review, we might decide to funda particular application in that area.
(20:18):
Sometimes when we have a congressionalmandate, that will encourage us to fund
some things in response to that mandate.
Or for example, let's say the applicationbrings a new investigator into a field
that, you know, has a limited pool ofinvestigators, a fresh perspective,
we might consider doing that.
Um, but we don't just, it's not justour staff who make this decision.
(20:41):
We nominate applications in that10 point percentile point zone for
high program priority consideration.
And then they're discussed atcouncil and council members can also
nominate applications from that zone.
So we spend some fraction of our moneyon funding things beyond the pay line.
And I'll just mention, just to wrapup the discussion, we don't fund 100%
(21:04):
of applications within the pay line.
If there's some, if we identify somereal red flag for an application, let's
say it's scientifically overlapping withanother application the investigator
already has and that person didn't mentionit, then we're not going to fund that.
Or if there's some ethical issue oryou know, human subjects issue, you
know, we take all this into account,but we do make most of our funding
(21:28):
decisions in accordance with the payline.
Lauren (21:30):
And do you want to talk a little bit about the ESI policy and
how the payline differs if you're an ESI?
Bob Finkelstein (21:37):
Yes.
So an ESI, I don't know if you discussedthis in a previous meeting, but an
ESI is an early stage investigators.
So an ESI is a person, this isan NIH definition, who has never
gotten an R01 grant from NIH orR01, we call it an R01 equivalent.
There are other grants that aresort of like R O ones in terms of
(21:58):
the resources that they give you.
So, and they're within 10 years oftheir, I don't like to use the word
terminal position, but they might bewithin 10 years of completing their
postdoc or completing their residency.
So an early stage investigator, they'venever gotten a major grant from, from NIH.
And, um, the 21st century curesact mandated that we give special
(22:22):
consideration to these investigators.
But we were all doing it long beforethat we believe, you know, we want
new investigators in the system.
It's incredibly important notfor it to continue to be the
same old people getting funded.
So for a long time, uh, for many yearswe've been funding ESI applications
up to about 10 points beyond thepayline and we fund almost all the ESI
(22:46):
applications up to--so if our paylinefor example, is the 15th percentile,
almost every ESI application to the25th percentile would get funded.
Um, I say almost every, if we identify,for example, um, an ESI who we think
is in not in a very good environmentthat will allow them to succeed,
then first we'll look into it a bit.
(23:06):
But if we think they're an environmentwhere it's just not good for them,
um, then we might make an exception.
But generally we fund ESIs up to 10points beyond our percentile pay line.
Marguerite Matthews (23:19):
Is there anything else that you all wish that
our audience understood about theadvisory council or how it's used
to make funding decisions at NINDS?
Bob Finkelstein (23:30):
Well, I think one thing is that they should
understand what a hard job Kelly has.
[laughter]
Kelly (23:33):
Well, I was going to kind of say something not about me, but
um, just all the work that goes intogetting a council meeting done, whether
it's like peer review and then the precouncil meetings and program staff input
and then, you know, afterwards, um, FMBand then our grants management branch.
Um, it's like a well oiled machineand there are so many moving
(23:57):
pieces and it comes together everytime, um, with a lot of hard work.
But I think it's just onepiece of the big puzzle
Bob Finkelstein (24:06):
Organizing and implementing a council meeting is very
complicated, very challenging task.
And like in many other areas oflife, things come up like the night
before the last minute, some--oneof our program officials will say,
Oh, I forgot to tell you this andthen we'll have to scramble and.
Kelly (24:22):
That definitely happens.
Bob Finkelstein (24:22):
We'll have to re-Xerox a hundred page handout
to insert something or whatever.
Um, in terms of what happens at council,I think it is important for people
to know that we mostly go by score.
And not always.
Um, well what I didn't say, Ididn't talk about, and you asked
this, I think what things are notfunded according to the pay line.
(24:45):
So there's a whole large number of grantapplications that don't get percentiled.
So for example, if we do an RFA,um, we don't percentile the grants.
So let's take that as an example.
Let's say we did an RFA on, let's sayit's on a particular disease, it can
also be on an area of basic science.
Um, we, we have a little more,we're a little more flexible
(25:08):
in terms of what we pay.
So if we do an RFA and we want toget sort of a scientific range of
applications funded, um, we mightnot fund exactly in score order.
So let's say we fundedeverything up to a score of 28.
Again, they're not percentiled, butwe noticed that something that got
a score of 33 is really good and itwould be a whole new area of research
(25:33):
that has never been undertaken beforeor like I said, a new investigator
in a field we'll discuss with councilfunding something that would be called
a reach or we might occasionally skip anapplication that we see problems with.
So an RFA is just one example.
Large clinical trials, most clinicaltrials do not get percentiled and
(25:54):
they're not funded automaticallyaccording to the pay line.
If something has human subjectsand is high visibility we're
very careful and do a lot of duediligence before discussing it.
So we discuss virtually every clinicaltrial application that we're considering,
um, funding with council because wewant to make sure that no one is being
treated unethically, for example.
(26:15):
Even it's also true with animalstudies, a lot of those applications
might not be, um, percentiled.
So we do a bunch of initiatives.
We have a category of sort of expensiveor visibility applications that don't get
percentiled and get discussed by council.
And there's a little more flexibility.
It's not a quote unquote automaticdecision the way the payline is.
(26:38):
So, uh, another thing that we do thatdoesn't happen automatically through the
pay line is choosing our Javits awardees.
So quite a while ago we establisheda certain award, the Jacob Javits
award in honor of a distinguishedSenator from New York state.
And these are awards for outstandinginvestigators who've made cutting
(27:03):
edge contributions to neuroscienceand neurology for many, many years.
It's not for new investigators.
Um, so these, the way this works is ifan R01 application comes in and gets a
good score, we look through all thoseR01 applications and we look to see,
find ones that are from investigatorswho we believe are, you know, that good.
(27:26):
And if so, we nominate them for Javitsawards and discuss them with counsel.
A Javits award just means that insteadof getting a four or five year, R01
grant, they get a seven year award.
So we're looking for people who we knowthat even if we extend the grant without
additional peer review, that they havea track record of doing great things.
(27:50):
It's not just that they have to begreat scientists, it's also that they
have to be really model citizens.
So we don't nominate somebodyfor a Javits award if they
never serve on study sections.
Um, we look for people who, you know,play important roles in building the
neuroscience slash neurology community.
So every council round, we consider,uh, usually two or three or sometimes
(28:14):
more Javits nominations and give themto a small pool of investigators.
And it's, it's a real honorwhich we publicize and their
institutions often publicize.
And it's a real vote ofconfidence in these people.
Marguerite Matthews (28:32):
Thank you all for sharing your
wisdom with us today.
Can I ask each of you for one last pieceof parting advice for our listeners?
Bob Finkelstein (28:44):
Well, um, I am often asked by people who are newer
to the system, uh, let's call themtrainees, what my advice is to them.
And I actually do have a piece ofadvice that I believe in very strongly.
So as a preamble, I'll just say thatright now, NIH and NINDS are doing all
(29:07):
kinds of incredibly important initiatives.
So for example, NIH has been given a verylarge amount of money from Congress to, to
do research to combat the opioid epidemic.
So we've started what'scalled the HEAL initiative.
And this is incredibly important.
We're trying to get the bestinvestigators cross the research
spectrum to study pain and lookfor non-addictive pain treatments.
(29:30):
Other institutes at NIHare involved as well.
We have the BRAIN Initiative thatwas started under President Obama.
That's, we're now spending hundreds ofmillions of dollars a year on that is
being allocated to this by Congress.
And finally, there's a lot of moneyfor research on Alzheimer's disease and
related dementias, which is, you know, isreaching the proportions of the national
(29:53):
epidemic and is incredibly important.
So for these kinds of areasand for the RFAs we do, we're
really trying to encourage peopleto work on specific topics.
And I, I, we hope that that happens,but for generic advice to trainees,
my biggest piece of advice is thatyou work on what you want to work on.
(30:16):
Now, there used to be in the 60s uh,a famous--Lauren is laughing at me--
Lauren Ullrich (30:22):
Now you're dating yourself.
[Laughter]
Bob Fink (30:23):
Well, I was, I was two years old, but...Well, a little older.
Okay.
But there used to be in the 60sa very famous man named Joseph
Campbell, who studied mythology,who studied myths and analyzed them.
And he's the one who coined an expressionthat was very popular in the 60s
called "follow your bliss." And heused to encourage people when they're
(30:44):
choosing what job to do or makingmajor decisions to go in the direction
of what they really are interested inand what they think is important to
follow their guts in that direction.
Um, a lot of trainees who I talkto in my job, um, try to figure
out what NINDS is interested inor what NIH is interested in.
(31:06):
They worry, some of them worry thatNIH isn't interested any more in basic
research, which is completely false;we're still extremely committed to
basic research and it does extremelywell in peer review compared to other
types of research, but they're oftentrying to figure out what they should
work on to get a competitive edge.
(31:27):
And my advice is that thatapproach does not work very well.
That the approach, particularlyin the long run, that works the
best is to work on somethingthat you're most interested in.
So for example, if you want to work onspinal cord injury, one of the diseases
or disorders that we cover, of courseyou should work on spinal cord injury.
That's a wonderful way to,to spend your research time.
(31:50):
But if you really want to work on axonguidance, the basic questions of how
nerve cells find their way, for example,in the spinal cord, and you're not
really that interested in in spinal cordinjury, you should work on axon guidance.
You shouldn't sort of pretend inyour application that you're really
working on a medical condition whenyou're, you know, or vice versa.
(32:12):
If you're interested in a disease,you know, you don't need to spin
it as a basic research project.
So, you know, biomedical researchis an absolutely wonderful
career, but a difficult one.
We're just like being a buddingcreative author; you're going
to get lots of rejections.
And the people who succeed in thesystem are the people who persevere,
who write a grant application, maybethe first time they get it, it's
(32:35):
triaged, doesn't even get a score.
There are people who quit at thatstage, but the people who don't quit,
who keep trying are the ones whobecome often the most successful.
So in order to have that kind ofperseverance, it only works if what
you're working on is something you enjoy.
If you're just going through themotions and working on something
that you think NIH is interested inbut you don't find that exciting,
(32:58):
in the long run, your career has ahigh probability of fizzling out.
So I would say, you know, if you canfind out what you really want to work
on, that's a real gift and you shouldstick to your guns and work on it.
Marguerite Matthews (33:13):
Not always try to fit yourself into other
boxes that people have created.
Bob Finkelstein (33:17):
That's right that's right.
I think people on the outside, notjust trainees, but often experienced
investigators, spend too much timetrying to figure out how they can
sort of manipulate the system.
Often if you spent that time onidentifying what you want to work on and
just writing as good an application as youcould, your track record will be better.
Lauren Ullrich (33:36):
Kelly do you have any advice?
Kelly (33:37):
So maybe not necessarily advice, but a helpful tip if anyone's
interested in seeing one of ourcouncil meetings, all of our video
casts for the last, I'd say fiveyears or so, are archived on the
NIH video cast website forever.
So you can always go back and takea look and see what the kinds of
things that we talk about there.
Bob Fin (33:57):
Now the video casts, as Kelly has said, are of the open session,
Kelly Baker (34:01):
Only open session.
Bob Finkelstein (34:02):
The closed session, there's not a recording
of and it's--what happens there isconfidential, for obvious reasons.
Marguerite Matthews (34:07):
Lauren, do you have any advice?
Lauren Ull (34:09):
So I think my advice is to, um, I think I've said this
before, but be an informed citizenand to, you know, check out the agenda
for council, which Kelly will post onthe website before council happens.
And if there's anything thatpiques your interest, tune in
or, or watch the recording.
(34:30):
Because we really do try to betransparent and have the sunshine or
fresh air or whatever it's called.
[laughter]
Kelly Ba (34:40):
We're in the sunshine!
Lauren U (34:40):
And we do that because we want people to know what's going on.
But also we want input from thecommunity and we can't get input from
you if you don't know what's going on.
So I think as part of being a goodcitizen of the neuroscience community
is making sure that you take advantageof the opportunities to be informed.
(35:00):
What about you, Marguerite?
Marguerite Matthews (35:01):
Along those same lines, I think it's important
to appreciate the work that goes in.
Oftentimes, people speak of NH as ifit's some robot place where decisions
are made and nobody cares aboutwhat's going on with the researchers.
And it's very clear from many of thediscussions we've had in previous
podcasts, but also perhaps most sort ofnotably, our council, that people making
(35:26):
recommendations, um, and, and things thatwe will focus on for our funding often
comes from the extramural community.
This may be managed and sort of drivenby the vision of the director and
supporting leadership of each Institute,but really the things that we're trying
to fund and the research that we wantto highlight often comes from you:
(35:48):
from our listeners, from your mentors.
And you will be that, that leader inthe field who may be making decisions.
So try to tune in and just watcha little bit of the discussions
that happen because the things thataffect our listeners are coming from
the people that they work with, thepeople who are at their institutions.
So we are not robots, [laughter]
Bob Finkelstein (36:10):
not
We check that box (36:12):
a robot
Marguerite Matthews (36:13):
We are not robots, we are humans!
And we do really take seriously what theextramural community finds important.
Lauren (36:27):
Well, that's all we have time for today on Building Up the Nerve.
So thank you again to our guests thisweek for sharing their expertise.
And also thank you to programdirector, Dr.Bob Riddle for
our theme song and music.
We'll see you next time when we tackleresubmission of your application.
You can find past episodes of thispodcast and many more grant application
(36:48):
resources on the web at ninds.nih.gov
Marguerite M (36:52):
Email us with your questions at NINDSNervePod@nih.gov.
Be sure to subscribe to the podcast onApple podcasts or your favorite podcast
app so you won't miss an episode.
See you next time.
Popular Podcasts
Joy 101 with Hoda Kotb
Joy is essential. And it's also elusive. You can't order it, borrow it, or simply hope it into life. But now, there's a new and exciting way to start your journey toward a more joyful existence: The Joy 101 Podcast with Hoda! Best known for her Emmy-winning work and co-anchoring Today, Hoda Kotb infuses her authenticity, curiosity, and warmth into conversations with the world’s most fascinating people. Entertainment legends, sport icons, wellness experts, and everyday folks will share how they find, allow, and experience joy. Hoda will offer her own tips and takes on seeking a more balanced, harmonious life. If you're craving inspiration, support, and useful tools to maximize your joy, tune in to these candid, uplifting, and moving on-air chats. Joy after a breakup, joy as an empty-nester, joy after loss, joy as a caretaker — Hoda's new podcast will speak to you. Joy 101 with Hoda Kotb, an iHeartPodcast.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com