February 7, 2020 • 34 mins
Learn how to approach resubmitting a grant from Program Directors Drs. Laura Mamounas and Beth-Anne Sieber, and Program Manager Dr. Shardell Spriggs.
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/558574/2645557-episode-9-resubmission
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 (00:26):
And I'm Lauren Ullrich, a scientific program manager
at NINDS, and we're your hosts today.
So last episode we discussedthe council review process
Marguerite Matthews (00:35):
and today we're going to talk about the
resubmission of your grant application.
As always, I want to state thedisclaimer that everything we talk about
today may only be relevant to NINDS.
So if you're applying to a different NIHInstitute or center, it's always best
to check with them about their policies.
Lauren Ullr (00:56):
Joining us for this episode are Dr. Laura Mamounas, a program
director in the neurogenetics cluster,Dr Beth-Anne Sieber, a program director
in the neurodegeneration cluster and DrShardell Spriggs, a program manager in
the division of translational research.
So let's start with introductions.
Laura Mamounas (01:13):
So I'm Laura Mamounas and I'm a program director
in the neurogenetics cluster atNINDS and my portfolio, my grants
portfolio includes, um, some basicneurodevelopment as well as, um,
grants in pediatric neurodevelopmentaldisorders that are associated with
autism, intellectual disability, ansepilepsy, um, disorders such as Rett
(01:36):
syndrome, fragile X, Phelan-McDermottsyndrome, tuberous sclerosis complex.
I joined the NINDS in 2001 and um, beforethat I was an assistant professor at
Johns Hopkins in Baltimore and I workedon basic neuro-development, neurotrophic
(01:56):
factors, and monoamine neurons.
And, um, in fact, I, I'll say this,that the grant I had, Beth-Anne Sieber
was my program director at the time.
So that was kind of fun.
Um, my passion, my hobbies and passions.
Well I love spending time withmy, my husband and my daughters,
they're in their twenties and I loveto travel to really cool places.
(02:20):
For example, my, my father's side ofthe family is from Greece and every
couple of years we go to Greece andvisit the islands, different islands.
So that's, that's what I, I like doing.
Lauren Ullrich (02:32):
Beth-Anne?
Beth-Anne Sieber (02:33):
Hi, I'm Beth-Anne Sieber.
I'm a program director in theneurodegeneration cluster.
I have been at NINDS since Octoberof 2007 as a program director.
And my portfolio here encompassesParkinson's disease research in general.
Before I started here, I was a programdirector at the National Institute of
(02:54):
Mental Health for several years andI had the good fortune of having Dr
Mamounas as one of my early granteesand I've known her since then.
Laura Mamounas (03:02):
And I was really difficult to deal with.
[laughter]
Beth-Anne S (03:06):
She was a wonderful and great to work with and still is.
Um, and so my research area of interestwas dopamine neuropharmacology and
toxicology and I worked on animal modelsof Parkinson's disease, um, at the time.
One of my hobbies or let's saypassions outside of work right now is
I'm a huge Washington Nationals fan.
Shardell Spriggs (03:26):
Hello, I'm Shardell Spriggs.
I am a program officer in thedivision of translational research
and I have a portfolio there.
I'm also the program managerfor the NIH Countermeasures
Against Chemical Threats program.
And that's where thebulk of my portfolio is.
I mainly work with grants to deal withneurotoxins and cellular metabolic
poisons and developing countermeasuresfor those in mass casualty situations.
(03:51):
I've been here for about four years andimmediately before I came to the dark
side, I was in my post doc at the schoolof medicine at the University of Maryland.
Uh, one of my hobbies or passionsare, uh, I guess I volunteer
a lot at my kids' schools.
I absolutely love crafting and willtry to repurpose almost anything.
(04:11):
And I love making soaps, soaps,that's my newest passion.
I do that a lot.
Lauren (04:22):
What should an applicant do if they don't get funded on their,
if their application doesn't get funded?
Shardell S (04:30):
So first they should understand that most people do not
get funded statistically speaking.
So they should not take this as adefeat, but rather look at it as a
way to improve their application.
And in the end, possibly the sciencethat they do once they get the money.
My advice would always beto resubmit the application.
(04:51):
Uh, two ways to do this through NIHwould be through a resubmission, which
is to put forward the same applicationwhich you would get a chance to
address your review or critiques orput forth a new application wherein
you would not address the previousapplication or reviewer critiques.
A third option is always toapply for funding outside of NIH.
(05:13):
There are a couple of key resourcesyou can look at when looking
at the first two NIH options.
The first thing you want to lookat is your summary statement.
You want to critically take alook at that without emotion.
It may even help to have someoneelse read it, too and see
if the problems are fixable.
Uh, some fixable problems couldbe insufficient information.
(05:35):
Is there extra data you can provide?
Did the reviewer misunderstandsomething that you can now easily
explain, for grantsmanship?
Things like that.
Also consider if your significancescore was a good score, like were they
excited about the application itselfor the science that you want to do and
(05:56):
just consider the flaws or the critiquesas things that you can improve on.
The second key resourceis your program officer.
You should definitelycontact your program officer.
All of us here have sat on many reviews,either in person or on the phone
and we can help provide some insightinto that review such as positive
(06:17):
or negative comments that didn'tmake it into the summary statement.
So in the end, my advice wouldalways be to resubmit, but look at
all the information in hand to seehow you move forward with that.
Laura Mamounas (06:28):
Well, I'd like to agree with that.
This is Laura Mamounas, definitely,you know, don't get discouraged, just
regroup, talk to your colleagues, to yourmentors and you know, just try to talk to
your program official and try to figureout how you can make your application
better because the data shows that, um,resubmission really does improve your
(06:53):
chances of eventually getting funded.
Laure (06:56):
If an applicant is trying to make the decision between submitting
a resubmission and a new application,what are the things that they should take
into account when making that decision?
Laura Mam (07:09):
So yeah, that, that's a, that's a tough one and it really
is going to depend upon the specificcritiques and the specific application
in front of us--in front of you.
So, you know, I always kind of look atthe critiques and are the concerns, are
(07:30):
they really fixable, are they technical?
And you can sort of address thempretty easily and uh, address the
reviewers concerns or do you haveto go back to the drawing board and
really, really in a big way revisethe application and resubmit it.
(07:50):
So, you know, if you really have to goback to the drawing board and revise,
you know, and change your experimentsand it really looks like it's a
whole new application, then you couldconsider putting in a new application.
You could even consider, and we'lltalk about this later, um, submitting
to a different study section.
(08:11):
If you think that the study section isreally not the best for your application.
So it's going to be a really, um, youknow, a tough question and it's going to
really depend on your specific critiquesand your particular proposal and your
program director, program officialcan really help you sort through that.
Marguerite Matthew (08:32):
So, um, what we learned in the last episode that
not all applications are actuallydiscussed during the study section.
So if I'm an applicant and my applicationwas never discussed, should I even
bother to resubmit if I don't have extrainformation to um, improve my application?
Beth-Anne Siebe (08:50):
I think that's, that's a really important question.
Um, as I'd like to emphasize thatShardell said earlier, reading the summary
statement will tell you a lot about thetemperature of that committee for your
application, even though it's unscoredor not discussed and you don't have the
benefit of a summary of the discussion.
You can tell a lot about thetemperature of the, the enthusiasm
(09:13):
of the committee from the summarystatement that you have in front
of, that you have in front of you.
Okay.
So one of the questions I wouldask is how unscored is it?
So how--you can look at the criteria inscores for each of the elements through
each of the reviewers for clues about whatis, what they were positive about and what
they didn't like about your application.
(09:35):
So I think that that will tell youwhether or not, give you some clues about
whether or not you should try to fix theapplication or submit a new application.
What I would also add is, is emphasizethe importance of talking to your program
officer because we can go over thesummary statement with you and provide
guidance on where to fix the application.
(09:56):
So for example, are thereissues with your research plan?
Did they not like theexperiments that you planned?
Can we fix those?
Was there something about your mentoringteam that they had an issue with?
Can we improve that by puttingadditional mentors on your team?
There are a lot of ways to fix anapplication even though it's unscored.
And what I would encourage you to dois again, talk to your program officer
(10:18):
and you know, we're there to go overit with you and talk to your mentors
about what they think and you'llcome up with a plan to move forward.
Shardell Spri (10:26):
One other thing I wanted to say about the not discussed
applications is that if you thinkthe problems are not fixable, you
can still resubmit it, but you wouldresubmit it as a new application.
And that way you can still use allof the information that you get in
the summary statement to tweak andkind of improve that application.
Lauren Ullrich (10:47):
Right.
Without having to carry sort of thebaggage of having to respond to their
critique into the, into the next step.
Shardell Spriggs (10:54):
Exactly.
If you don't want the next review sessionto see what all the reviewers said
about you in the last one come in asa new application, use the information
you have and prove it and start anew.
Marguerite Matthe (11:06):
So just to be clear, when you resubmit an application
that has already been reviewed andscored for a true resubmission,
you're actually addressing thecomments that reviewers made.
So this, there's actually some sort of ahistory or record of what was previously
submitted and the resubmission wouldrequire you to address reviewer comments.
(11:30):
Is that correct?
Shardell Spriggs (11:31):
That's right.
So if you come in through a trueresubmission, the next review panel
will also see your summary statement.
And so they will have your summarystatement and in your new resubmission
there's an introduction that theinvestigator will write that should
address all of those critiques that werebrought up in that summary statement.
Lauren Ullrich (11:47):
And sometimes that's a positive thing.
If you've done a really good joband you've addressed all of the
critiques and they can see a clearstrengthening of the application,
that can actually work in your favor.
Shardell Spriggs (11:58):
Yeah.
Laura brought up that the success ratesfor resubmissions are actually higher
than they are for new applications.
Laura M (12:06):
And this is Laura again and you know on a resubmission you have
an extra one page with which to respondand you should do this very politely
and respectfully to the critiques andexplain how you have addressed them.
So you get an actually extrapage in your application.
And you know, again, as programofficials, we have sat in on thousands
(12:30):
of study sections and went throughthousands of summary statements,
or at least it seems I have.
And you know, we get sort of a senseas to, you know, what were those score
driving concerns and we can help youto sort through those and figure out
should you just go back to the drawingboard or these really addressable,
(12:54):
fixable kinds of uh, concerns.
Lauren Ull (12:58):
And so when it comes to that conversation, having that
conversation with your program officer,what kinds of questions should applicants
be asking and are there any questionsthat maybe aren't as productive?
Shardell Spriggs (13:11):
So as program officers, we're here for you.
We're here for the principal investigator,we're here to try to help them.
And we all touched on this a littleearlier when we say we could provide
insight into review, we see things,we hear things that don't always
make it into the summary statement.
And so I would always say you should havethat discussion with your program officer.
(13:34):
After each review, just send the email,set up some time and have that discussion.
And I would say you could potentiallyask us anything that's on your mind about
your application or with the review.
Of course we can only give you our opinionand we can not guarantee an outcome.
We cannot say if you do everythingthat we say, you will have, you know,
(13:57):
your grant, the next council round.
But one such instance that we can help youon if there is a lengthy debate, say 50%
of the time in which your application wasdiscussed was on one topic, but there's
only one sentence on that topic in yoursummary statement, we can tell you, please
fix this one thing, do what you want withthe other stuff, but also consider this.
(14:20):
This was really what they just harped on.
That could be helpful.
As far as not productivequestions--any question trying to
get us to disclose which reviewerswere assigned to and reviewed your
application is definitely off limits.
Uh, the reviewers anonymity is protected.
Uh, even when I take notes, I don'twrite down which reviewer is commenting
(14:43):
to help add an extra layer to that.
And also finally, I just want to mentionif you're a trainee, you may also
want to contact the office directly todiscuss your eligibility for certain
funding opportunity announcements.
Uh, we know there's a career sensitivetimeline there and even if you're
in eligible, sometimes they canpoint you to other opportunities
(15:05):
either outside of NIH or things thatyou just may not have known about.
Beth-Anne (15:10):
One other suggestion that I think we might all agree with
is that when you'd like to speak tous immediately after the review, when
you have a score and you're eager totalk to us, we'd like to talk with
you to; the most productive timefor us to talk to you is after the
summary statement has been released.
And I think it's great if you sendus an email with your availability
(15:31):
and we'll set up a time to talk thenbecause what we do as a Shardell and
Laura have said is that we synthesizethe information from the discussion and
that's also written down in the summarystatement to be able to give you the
best feedback that we can on the process.
So please wait until the summarystatements out and then send us an
email and we're happy to set up a timeto talk with you about the reviews.
Laura Mamounas (15:54):
Right.
And if your application unfortunatelywas not discussed, we will have no
feedback to provide until we get thesummary statement because we don't
have any notes that we've, you know,we haven't been able to hear the
uh, discussion of your application.
Marguerite Matthews (16:10):
Okay.
So once an applicant has reviewed theirsummary statement and they've talked
to their program official about thecomments made on their application, how
should an applicant approach actuallygoing about revising their grant?
Beth-Anne Siebe (16:24):
I would say the first thing is take a deep breath,
just, you know, just process.
And don't take it personally.
Um, if you need to just take astep back for a little bit, send
your program officer and emailand set up a time to talk to us.
Um, I would recommend actually if,if you're thinking of revising or
(16:47):
resubmitting a grant application,I would start with the one page
introduction that was mentioned earlier.
I think it's a really good way to orderyour thoughts and start thinking about
how you would respond to the critiques.
And actually you can send us a draftof that one page introduction and we'll
talk about that with you as well tosee if we agree, whether you're hitting
(17:09):
all the main points in the, in thecritiques, in the summary statement.
And also we also readfor things like tone.
So for example, it's always reallygood to thank the review committee
for their helpful critiques.
And we look for red flagssuch as, you know, the review
committee are a bunch of whatevers[laughter] . We don't recommend that.
Marguerite (17:31):
Don't be combative.
Beth-Anne Sieber (17:32):
That's a great way to say it.
Um, and there's an sort of anart to writing the introduction
to get people on your side.
And I do think it's a good way to frameyour thoughts and there's sort of a, a
clarity of explanation and response thatyou can have in the introduction that sets
the tone for the entire grant application.
(17:53):
And a lot of reviewers tend to lookat that page to see whether you've
been responsive to the prior critique.
So it's an art.
Um, your mentors and colleaguescan help you with that.
We can take a look at it and Isuggest that that's the first step.
Shardel (18:09):
To add to that, I would just say too, to make sure you respond to
each and every critique that is meaningfulin your summary statement, do not ignore
their comments, do not dismiss them.
Please use that introductionextra page that Laura and
Beth-Anne have mentioned wisely.
Laura M (18:27):
I just like to add that I advise my applicants to put up a like
a paper board and write down all of thecritiques so that you don't miss them, or
highlight them on your summary statement.
Because as Shardell mentioned, it'sreally important that you address
all of the, the uh, concerns thatare raised in one way or another.
Lauren Ullric (18:50):
What if reviewers disagree about a part of your application?
So one thinks its a very good ideaand one thinks its a bad idea.
How would you approachresponding in that situation?
Laura Mamoun (19:02):
That's a challenge where you have reviewers that,
you know, one loves a particularaim and another one doesn't.
And so you just really have to then juggleand um, figure out, okay, how can I take
these comments and improve my application?
(19:22):
And that's always what you need to do in arevision is make your application better.
Marguerite Matth (19:26):
So what is the best way to deal with a reviewer that
you disagree with or say there werethree reviewers that you think may
be just completely missed the pointof what you were trying to convey.
How do you respond tothose types of comments?
Laura Mamounas (19:39):
So you know, in your career you are going to get
reviews and you're going to go, myGod, those reviewers are idiots.
[laughter] You know, andyou're going to be really mad.
So when you get that summary statement,you get those critiques, scream,
yell, throw darts on the wall andwrite a whole nasty, nasty letter
and then ball it up, tear it up, andthen calm down and say, okay, my job
(20:04):
now is to make my application better.
So the first thing is to figure outwhy do the reviewers disagree with you?
Was it because you didn'tmake your points clear enough?
Is it a grantsmanship issue?
And in your revision you can makeyour aims and your approach and
(20:24):
design clear to the reviewers.
Is it a difference of opinion?
You know, and that happens a lot wherethey got it, but they just don't agree
with you or they're suggesting somethingthat you know is not gonna work.
And I always tell my applicants, make yourapplication better based on the critiques.
(20:44):
Take the stuff that youagree with and improve it.
If there's something you reallydon't agree with, then talk to your
colleagues, talk to your mentor.
You know, am I missing something here?
Am I not seeing the whole picture?
And if all, if your team all agreesthat the approach you're taking is the
right one and the reviewer is suggestingsomething that's not going to work, then
(21:09):
don't change your application, just, uh,you know, unless you really agree that
it's going to make a stronger proposal.
And the reason for that is that you'renot guaranteed in the next review to
have all three of those reviewers.
You know, you'll probablyget at least one reviewer.
You may get two, but it's veryunlikely you'll get three.
And I have seen too many times wherein the revision, a new reviewer will
(21:34):
say, well, I don't like this change.
I thought the originalapproach was the best.
So you need to improve andmake your application better.
That doesn't mean youignore the criticism.
And what you can do is politelysay, yes, you know, we can, we
have considered this approach.
We've tried it, it doesn'twork for these reasons.
(21:55):
However, we're going to try toaddress this concern by adding these
other elements to the proposal.
So don't ignore it, but just youand your mentor and team need
to make your application better.
Marguerite Matthews (22:10):
So it's not about pleasing the old reviewers,
it's about really thinking abouthow to make the application stronger
and possibly even make more sensefor you and for the science.
So I think that's really good advice.
Laura Mamounas (22:22):
And clearer.
If it's a grantsmanship issue, you know,maybe you can add more preliminary data
to address some of the concerns that wereraised that you might not agree with.
You need to justify the approach, bepolite, be respectful, but make your
application better because you are not,you're unlikely you'll get all three
of those reviewers, you, you know, andyou you're going to have a new panel
(22:45):
there and you need to have a strongerapplication put in front of them.
Lauren Ullric (22:48):
Um, so one of the things that we talked about in a
previous episode was choosing whichInstitute or which study section
you should send your application to.
And so we talked about thatyou can always request certain
institutes or, or study sections.
Um, that's not a guarantee, but they tryto, CSR tries to honor that when possible.
(23:10):
When should an applicant considertrying to go to a different Institute
or a different study section on their,either their resubmission or their
new submission of an application.
Laura Mamounas (23:23):
So I'll start with talking about study sections.
So again, and we talked about thisearlier, you need to work with your
program director to figure out whatare the nature of the criticisms.
So if the reviewers really likedthe overall approach, they think
is significant, exciting, you know,they think that um, you're a great
(23:45):
applicant, your mentoring team is really,really good and you feel like you can
respond well to the critiques in yourresubmission then you want to go back
to that same study section, right?
But if you get the sense that it was,you know, that study section just doesn't
get it; they're just, and no matterwhat I do, they're not going to get it.
(24:08):
Then that's the time to talk toyour program director and your team,
your investigator team, and yourmentor about whether a new study
section would be more appropriate.
But it's a tough one because thenyou have to ask yourself, do I submit
a revised application but go to anew study section or do I start from
(24:28):
scratch and put in a new application?
And you know, these are toughquestions because there's
pros and cons to doing both.
If you put in a revised applicationthat it goes to a new study section,
you're pretty much guaranteed withstarting with a whole new review
team and they're going to have theirown culture and their own take.
They're going to have their owncriticisms that you know you didn't
(24:53):
have previously and this is yourlast chance on the resubmission
for this particular application.
Um, and so, you know, you mightwant to think, well, maybe
I'll put in a new application.
However, with a new application, you know,you don't have really the opportunity to
respond to the critiques and the reviewersaren't going to see your response
(25:15):
and how well you've addressed them.
So it's a really tough sort ofquestion and you know, it's going to
be on a proposal by proposal basisand it's going to have, you know,
involve you and your co-investigatorsand your mentor, um, to kind of sort
through that and make that decision.
In terms of institutes, hopefully youwill have selected the right or it will
(25:37):
be assigned and you will have selectedthe right Institute to start with.
And it's, it's very rare, fortunately,that, you know, at the resubmission stage,
um, you, you come to the realizationthat your Institute is not the right one.
It can happen.
And, um, it may be that, you know, yougot a really good score and your Institute
(25:59):
says, well, we're just not interested inthis area and no matter what score you
get, your, we're not going to fund it.
Now, fortunately, this almostnever happens at NINDS.
We, you know, when we're very agnosticabout, about areas of research,
if we have accepted an applicationand it does well in review, it's
(26:20):
very rare we wouldn't fund it.
But there may be other institutes thatuh, you know, do make these kinds of
decisions independent of the score.
And in that case, you know, you needto talk to the program director of
that Institute and you also needto talk to the program director at
the new Institute because it's a very,um, involved, complicated process of
(26:42):
transferring an application that'sin mid, in mid review of the speak.
Lauren U (26:47):
And I should note that for a lot of like training and fellowship
applications, you really have no choice.
There's one study section that reviewsall of those applications and it's them
or the highway, but when you're thinkingabout say, the R01 space, you have a
lot more flexibility in terms of ofwhere you're directing your application.
Beth-Anne Sieb (27:09):
I would say that it's always good to know program
officers across different institutesas well as other information
including the funding level thateach Institute is is funding toward.
I think on a resubmission, forNINDS as mentioned, we have very
broad interest in neuroscience.
If there's a really significant changein your aims, if you completely rehaul
(27:31):
them--and to give you an example,let's say that you're doing research
on Parkinson's disease and you switch,based on reviewer critiques, to a
real focus on aging, we would stillaccept that and the National Institute
on Aging may also be interested.
So there are areas of overlap and Ithink it's very important, I'll say this
probably three more times during thepodcast, to contact your program officers
(27:55):
and to understand what your options are.
We're all here to work with you.
We're not going to, you know, get upset ifyou ask questions about another Institute.
We all, all programofficers know each other.
We've worked together and we referpeople across institutes all the time.
What's most important to us is thatyou're successful as an applicant.
We want you to get that grant.
We want you to do your research andwe will help you make the contacts,
(28:18):
interpret your summary statement,do whatever we can do on our end
to get you through this process.
Laur (28:24):
I want to agree with that.
I mean our goal is not that NINDSfunds your application, but just
that the NIH funds your applicationand we're, we're happy if another
Institute is really interested inyour proposal and they have a better
pay line or funding level than we do.
We're more than happy to have you, youknow, work with that other Institute.
Marguerite Matthews (28:43):
Yeah, it all contributes to the
greater research enterprise.
Well, thank you all for joiningus today and sharing your wisdom
on resubmitting an application.
Can I ask each of you to give ourlisteners one last piece of advice?
Shardell Sprigg (28:59):
My advice would be to resubmit and, and just take
advantage of the resubmission processby resubmitting your application.
If you're not successful, donot accept it as a defeat.
Look at that summary statement, answerthose critiques and you know, revise
and put in a better application.
Beth-An (29:20):
My advice is to do what Shardell says and also to please call us.
We're here to help you as much as we can.
Laura Mamounas (29:27):
And I would say, you know, if for whatever reason
you don't get your fellowship oryour career award, don't despair.
It's not the end of your career.
You know, when you go on and you'rean assistant professor or, and you're
putting in your R01, no one's going tolook back and say, Oh my gosh, you didn't
get that F 31 or 32 or the K award.
(29:49):
You're, you'll be fine.
And you'll have learned a lot inthe process of writing a grant.
It will help you throughoutyour whole career
Marguerite Matthews (29:57):
and you'll be able to help your mentees
that are working in your lab.
Lauren, what about you?
Lauren (30:03):
Um, I guess I would say from my perspective, one of the most
important things is making sure to buildthe resubmission into your timeline.
Because everything we just talkedabout is a moot point if you time out.
Um, especially in the trainingspace, you're often eligible
only for a limited window.
I talk to applicants all the time thatsay, Oh, I just need to do one more
experiment or I'm not quite ready.
(30:26):
And then they keep pushing it and pushingit and pushing it, and then they only
have one submission cycle that they'rereally eligible for and they, if they
don't get it on that try, they don'thave the chance to take advantage of all
of the ways in which the resubmissionprocess makes your science stronger.
Um, and then also realize that you can'tusually resubmit the exact next cycle.
(30:49):
You often don't get thesummary statement back in time.
And so you have to actuallyplan to submit two cycles.
So if you submit in the spring,you won't be able to resubmit
until the fall of that year.
So it's a long time to be thinkingahead and making sure that you
are able to do that resubmission
Laura (31:09):
and I'd like to follow up on timelines and one thing that I think
we didn't bring up, and that is whenyou're doing your, either your initial
application or your resubmission, giveyourself plenty of time to work on that.
Get it done well before the grantdeadline so that you can have your
colleagues and your mentors andmaybe your worst enemies look through
(31:32):
it, critique it, tear it apart,
Marguerite Matthews (31:36):
be the reviewer number three,
Laura Mamounas (31:38):
be the reviewer number three, so that you don't--you
know, because you're really involvedin writing this, you're, you're,
you're in the middle of the weeds.
But somebody else you know who maynot be a perfect expert in your area
will say, I don't understand this orthis isn't clear and give you a chance
to put in a much better application.
Lauren Ullrich (31:58):
And Marguerite, your advice.
Marguerite Matthews (32:00):
Yes.
So my grad advisor recently tweeted,the thing she noticed when she's
looking at grants is that inexperiencedgrant writers aim to impress while
experienced grant writers aim to explain.
So if you're trying to impress, you willtake it personally if the reviewers don't
like your application or they find flaws.
Um, but if you're aiming to explain,you'll take those, um, that summary
(32:23):
statement as constructive feedback and away for you to improve your application.
Um, and perhaps it's just a question ofnot explaining it, um, in a manner that
really was helpful or maybe you couldhave been more clear or maybe the science
as strong as it could be and now is anopportunity for you really to be able
to show your ideas in a different way.
(32:46):
Um, so again, try notto take this personally.
You know, as, as Lauramentioned, be upset about it.
You know, you didn't get funded, it sucks.
It's not a good feeling.
And then pick yourself right back upand go ahead and do what you need to do.
Because if you want a career inresearch, this is going to be part
of your life and you're always goingto have to try to explain to others
(33:08):
why your research is valuable.
So the sooner you start and build sort of,um, a resilience, you'll, you'll see that
it is not a, no one is out to get you.
Um, they just want to makeyou a better researcher and,
and have stronger research.
Lauren Ul (33:29):
So that's all we have time for today on Building Up the Nerve.
Thank you again to our guestsfor sharing their expertise.
And thank you also to program director, DrBob Riddle for our theme song and music.
We'll see you next episode when wetackle the issuance of the grant award.
You can find past episodes of thispodcast and many more grant application
(33:50):
resources on the web at ninds.nih.gov.
Marguerite Matthews (33:54):
Email us questions at NINDSNervePod@NIH.gov.
And be sure to subscribe to us onApple 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 (00:26):
And I'm Lauren Ullrich, a scientific program manager
at NINDS, and we're your hosts today.
So last episode we discussedthe council review process
Marguerite Matthews (00:35):
and today we're going to talk about the
resubmission of your grant application.
As always, I want to state thedisclaimer that everything we talk about
today may only be relevant to NINDS.
So if you're applying to a different NIHInstitute or center, it's always best
to check with them about their policies.
Lauren Ullr (00:56):
Joining us for this episode are Dr. Laura Mamounas, a program
director in the neurogenetics cluster,Dr Beth-Anne Sieber, a program director
in the neurodegeneration cluster and DrShardell Spriggs, a program manager in
the division of translational research.
So let's start with introductions.
Laura Mamounas (01:13):
So I'm Laura Mamounas and I'm a program director
in the neurogenetics cluster atNINDS and my portfolio, my grants
portfolio includes, um, some basicneurodevelopment as well as, um,
grants in pediatric neurodevelopmentaldisorders that are associated with
autism, intellectual disability, ansepilepsy, um, disorders such as Rett
(01:36):
syndrome, fragile X, Phelan-McDermottsyndrome, tuberous sclerosis complex.
I joined the NINDS in 2001 and um, beforethat I was an assistant professor at
Johns Hopkins in Baltimore and I workedon basic neuro-development, neurotrophic
(01:56):
factors, and monoamine neurons.
And, um, in fact, I, I'll say this,that the grant I had, Beth-Anne Sieber
was my program director at the time.
So that was kind of fun.
Um, my passion, my hobbies and passions.
Well I love spending time withmy, my husband and my daughters,
they're in their twenties and I loveto travel to really cool places.
(02:20):
For example, my, my father's side ofthe family is from Greece and every
couple of years we go to Greece andvisit the islands, different islands.
So that's, that's what I, I like doing.
Lauren Ullrich (02:32):
Beth-Anne?
Beth-Anne Sieber (02:33):
Hi, I'm Beth-Anne Sieber.
I'm a program director in theneurodegeneration cluster.
I have been at NINDS since Octoberof 2007 as a program director.
And my portfolio here encompassesParkinson's disease research in general.
Before I started here, I was a programdirector at the National Institute of
(02:54):
Mental Health for several years andI had the good fortune of having Dr
Mamounas as one of my early granteesand I've known her since then.
Laura Mamounas (03:02):
And I was really difficult to deal with.
[laughter]
Beth-Anne S (03:06):
She was a wonderful and great to work with and still is.
Um, and so my research area of interestwas dopamine neuropharmacology and
toxicology and I worked on animal modelsof Parkinson's disease, um, at the time.
One of my hobbies or let's saypassions outside of work right now is
I'm a huge Washington Nationals fan.
Shardell Spriggs (03:26):
Hello, I'm Shardell Spriggs.
I am a program officer in thedivision of translational research
and I have a portfolio there.
I'm also the program managerfor the NIH Countermeasures
Against Chemical Threats program.
And that's where thebulk of my portfolio is.
I mainly work with grants to deal withneurotoxins and cellular metabolic
poisons and developing countermeasuresfor those in mass casualty situations.
(03:51):
I've been here for about four years andimmediately before I came to the dark
side, I was in my post doc at the schoolof medicine at the University of Maryland.
Uh, one of my hobbies or passionsare, uh, I guess I volunteer
a lot at my kids' schools.
I absolutely love crafting and willtry to repurpose almost anything.
(04:11):
And I love making soaps, soaps,that's my newest passion.
I do that a lot.
Lauren (04:22):
What should an applicant do if they don't get funded on their,
if their application doesn't get funded?
Shardell S (04:30):
So first they should understand that most people do not
get funded statistically speaking.
So they should not take this as adefeat, but rather look at it as a
way to improve their application.
And in the end, possibly the sciencethat they do once they get the money.
My advice would always beto resubmit the application.
(04:51):
Uh, two ways to do this through NIHwould be through a resubmission, which
is to put forward the same applicationwhich you would get a chance to
address your review or critiques orput forth a new application wherein
you would not address the previousapplication or reviewer critiques.
A third option is always toapply for funding outside of NIH.
(05:13):
There are a couple of key resourcesyou can look at when looking
at the first two NIH options.
The first thing you want to lookat is your summary statement.
You want to critically take alook at that without emotion.
It may even help to have someoneelse read it, too and see
if the problems are fixable.
Uh, some fixable problems couldbe insufficient information.
(05:35):
Is there extra data you can provide?
Did the reviewer misunderstandsomething that you can now easily
explain, for grantsmanship?
Things like that.
Also consider if your significancescore was a good score, like were they
excited about the application itselfor the science that you want to do and
(05:56):
just consider the flaws or the critiquesas things that you can improve on.
The second key resourceis your program officer.
You should definitelycontact your program officer.
All of us here have sat on many reviews,either in person or on the phone
and we can help provide some insightinto that review such as positive
(06:17):
or negative comments that didn'tmake it into the summary statement.
So in the end, my advice wouldalways be to resubmit, but look at
all the information in hand to seehow you move forward with that.
Laura Mamounas (06:28):
Well, I'd like to agree with that.
This is Laura Mamounas, definitely,you know, don't get discouraged, just
regroup, talk to your colleagues, to yourmentors and you know, just try to talk to
your program official and try to figureout how you can make your application
better because the data shows that, um,resubmission really does improve your
(06:53):
chances of eventually getting funded.
Laure (06:56):
If an applicant is trying to make the decision between submitting
a resubmission and a new application,what are the things that they should take
into account when making that decision?
Laura Mam (07:09):
So yeah, that, that's a, that's a tough one and it really
is going to depend upon the specificcritiques and the specific application
in front of us--in front of you.
So, you know, I always kind of look atthe critiques and are the concerns, are
(07:30):
they really fixable, are they technical?
And you can sort of address thempretty easily and uh, address the
reviewers concerns or do you haveto go back to the drawing board and
really, really in a big way revisethe application and resubmit it.
(07:50):
So, you know, if you really have to goback to the drawing board and revise,
you know, and change your experimentsand it really looks like it's a
whole new application, then you couldconsider putting in a new application.
You could even consider, and we'lltalk about this later, um, submitting
to a different study section.
(08:11):
If you think that the study section isreally not the best for your application.
So it's going to be a really, um, youknow, a tough question and it's going to
really depend on your specific critiquesand your particular proposal and your
program director, program officialcan really help you sort through that.
Marguerite Matthew (08:32):
So, um, what we learned in the last episode that
not all applications are actuallydiscussed during the study section.
So if I'm an applicant and my applicationwas never discussed, should I even
bother to resubmit if I don't have extrainformation to um, improve my application?
Beth-Anne Siebe (08:50):
I think that's, that's a really important question.
Um, as I'd like to emphasize thatShardell said earlier, reading the summary
statement will tell you a lot about thetemperature of that committee for your
application, even though it's unscoredor not discussed and you don't have the
benefit of a summary of the discussion.
You can tell a lot about thetemperature of the, the enthusiasm
(09:13):
of the committee from the summarystatement that you have in front
of, that you have in front of you.
Okay.
So one of the questions I wouldask is how unscored is it?
So how--you can look at the criteria inscores for each of the elements through
each of the reviewers for clues about whatis, what they were positive about and what
they didn't like about your application.
(09:35):
So I think that that will tell youwhether or not, give you some clues about
whether or not you should try to fix theapplication or submit a new application.
What I would also add is, is emphasizethe importance of talking to your program
officer because we can go over thesummary statement with you and provide
guidance on where to fix the application.
(09:56):
So for example, are thereissues with your research plan?
Did they not like theexperiments that you planned?
Can we fix those?
Was there something about your mentoringteam that they had an issue with?
Can we improve that by puttingadditional mentors on your team?
There are a lot of ways to fix anapplication even though it's unscored.
And what I would encourage you to dois again, talk to your program officer
(10:18):
and you know, we're there to go overit with you and talk to your mentors
about what they think and you'llcome up with a plan to move forward.
Shardell Spri (10:26):
One other thing I wanted to say about the not discussed
applications is that if you thinkthe problems are not fixable, you
can still resubmit it, but you wouldresubmit it as a new application.
And that way you can still use allof the information that you get in
the summary statement to tweak andkind of improve that application.
Lauren Ullrich (10:47):
Right.
Without having to carry sort of thebaggage of having to respond to their
critique into the, into the next step.
Shardell Spriggs (10:54):
Exactly.
If you don't want the next review sessionto see what all the reviewers said
about you in the last one come in asa new application, use the information
you have and prove it and start anew.
Marguerite Matthe (11:06):
So just to be clear, when you resubmit an application
that has already been reviewed andscored for a true resubmission,
you're actually addressing thecomments that reviewers made.
So this, there's actually some sort of ahistory or record of what was previously
submitted and the resubmission wouldrequire you to address reviewer comments.
(11:30):
Is that correct?
Shardell Spriggs (11:31):
That's right.
So if you come in through a trueresubmission, the next review panel
will also see your summary statement.
And so they will have your summarystatement and in your new resubmission
there's an introduction that theinvestigator will write that should
address all of those critiques that werebrought up in that summary statement.
Lauren Ullrich (11:47):
And sometimes that's a positive thing.
If you've done a really good joband you've addressed all of the
critiques and they can see a clearstrengthening of the application,
that can actually work in your favor.
Shardell Spriggs (11:58):
Yeah.
Laura brought up that the success ratesfor resubmissions are actually higher
than they are for new applications.
Laura M (12:06):
And this is Laura again and you know on a resubmission you have
an extra one page with which to respondand you should do this very politely
and respectfully to the critiques andexplain how you have addressed them.
So you get an actually extrapage in your application.
And you know, again, as programofficials, we have sat in on thousands
(12:30):
of study sections and went throughthousands of summary statements,
or at least it seems I have.
And you know, we get sort of a senseas to, you know, what were those score
driving concerns and we can help youto sort through those and figure out
should you just go back to the drawingboard or these really addressable,
(12:54):
fixable kinds of uh, concerns.
Lauren Ull (12:58):
And so when it comes to that conversation, having that
conversation with your program officer,what kinds of questions should applicants
be asking and are there any questionsthat maybe aren't as productive?
Shardell Spriggs (13:11):
So as program officers, we're here for you.
We're here for the principal investigator,we're here to try to help them.
And we all touched on this a littleearlier when we say we could provide
insight into review, we see things,we hear things that don't always
make it into the summary statement.
And so I would always say you should havethat discussion with your program officer.
(13:34):
After each review, just send the email,set up some time and have that discussion.
And I would say you could potentiallyask us anything that's on your mind about
your application or with the review.
Of course we can only give you our opinionand we can not guarantee an outcome.
We cannot say if you do everythingthat we say, you will have, you know,
(13:57):
your grant, the next council round.
But one such instance that we can help youon if there is a lengthy debate, say 50%
of the time in which your application wasdiscussed was on one topic, but there's
only one sentence on that topic in yoursummary statement, we can tell you, please
fix this one thing, do what you want withthe other stuff, but also consider this.
(14:20):
This was really what they just harped on.
That could be helpful.
As far as not productivequestions--any question trying to
get us to disclose which reviewerswere assigned to and reviewed your
application is definitely off limits.
Uh, the reviewers anonymity is protected.
Uh, even when I take notes, I don'twrite down which reviewer is commenting
(14:43):
to help add an extra layer to that.
And also finally, I just want to mentionif you're a trainee, you may also
want to contact the office directly todiscuss your eligibility for certain
funding opportunity announcements.
Uh, we know there's a career sensitivetimeline there and even if you're
in eligible, sometimes they canpoint you to other opportunities
(15:05):
either outside of NIH or things thatyou just may not have known about.
Beth-Anne (15:10):
One other suggestion that I think we might all agree with
is that when you'd like to speak tous immediately after the review, when
you have a score and you're eager totalk to us, we'd like to talk with
you to; the most productive timefor us to talk to you is after the
summary statement has been released.
And I think it's great if you sendus an email with your availability
(15:31):
and we'll set up a time to talk thenbecause what we do as a Shardell and
Laura have said is that we synthesizethe information from the discussion and
that's also written down in the summarystatement to be able to give you the
best feedback that we can on the process.
So please wait until the summarystatements out and then send us an
email and we're happy to set up a timeto talk with you about the reviews.
Laura Mamounas (15:54):
Right.
And if your application unfortunatelywas not discussed, we will have no
feedback to provide until we get thesummary statement because we don't
have any notes that we've, you know,we haven't been able to hear the
uh, discussion of your application.
Marguerite Matthews (16:10):
Okay.
So once an applicant has reviewed theirsummary statement and they've talked
to their program official about thecomments made on their application, how
should an applicant approach actuallygoing about revising their grant?
Beth-Anne Siebe (16:24):
I would say the first thing is take a deep breath,
just, you know, just process.
And don't take it personally.
Um, if you need to just take astep back for a little bit, send
your program officer and emailand set up a time to talk to us.
Um, I would recommend actually if,if you're thinking of revising or
(16:47):
resubmitting a grant application,I would start with the one page
introduction that was mentioned earlier.
I think it's a really good way to orderyour thoughts and start thinking about
how you would respond to the critiques.
And actually you can send us a draftof that one page introduction and we'll
talk about that with you as well tosee if we agree, whether you're hitting
(17:09):
all the main points in the, in thecritiques, in the summary statement.
And also we also readfor things like tone.
So for example, it's always reallygood to thank the review committee
for their helpful critiques.
And we look for red flagssuch as, you know, the review
committee are a bunch of whatevers[laughter] . We don't recommend that.
Marguerite (17:31):
Don't be combative.
Beth-Anne Sieber (17:32):
That's a great way to say it.
Um, and there's an sort of anart to writing the introduction
to get people on your side.
And I do think it's a good way to frameyour thoughts and there's sort of a, a
clarity of explanation and response thatyou can have in the introduction that sets
the tone for the entire grant application.
(17:53):
And a lot of reviewers tend to lookat that page to see whether you've
been responsive to the prior critique.
So it's an art.
Um, your mentors and colleaguescan help you with that.
We can take a look at it and Isuggest that that's the first step.
Shardel (18:09):
To add to that, I would just say too, to make sure you respond to
each and every critique that is meaningfulin your summary statement, do not ignore
their comments, do not dismiss them.
Please use that introductionextra page that Laura and
Beth-Anne have mentioned wisely.
Laura M (18:27):
I just like to add that I advise my applicants to put up a like
a paper board and write down all of thecritiques so that you don't miss them, or
highlight them on your summary statement.
Because as Shardell mentioned, it'sreally important that you address
all of the, the uh, concerns thatare raised in one way or another.
Lauren Ullric (18:50):
What if reviewers disagree about a part of your application?
So one thinks its a very good ideaand one thinks its a bad idea.
How would you approachresponding in that situation?
Laura Mamoun (19:02):
That's a challenge where you have reviewers that,
you know, one loves a particularaim and another one doesn't.
And so you just really have to then juggleand um, figure out, okay, how can I take
these comments and improve my application?
(19:22):
And that's always what you need to do in arevision is make your application better.
Marguerite Matth (19:26):
So what is the best way to deal with a reviewer that
you disagree with or say there werethree reviewers that you think may
be just completely missed the pointof what you were trying to convey.
How do you respond tothose types of comments?
Laura Mamounas (19:39):
So you know, in your career you are going to get
reviews and you're going to go, myGod, those reviewers are idiots.
[laughter] You know, andyou're going to be really mad.
So when you get that summary statement,you get those critiques, scream,
yell, throw darts on the wall andwrite a whole nasty, nasty letter
and then ball it up, tear it up, andthen calm down and say, okay, my job
(20:04):
now is to make my application better.
So the first thing is to figure outwhy do the reviewers disagree with you?
Was it because you didn'tmake your points clear enough?
Is it a grantsmanship issue?
And in your revision you can makeyour aims and your approach and
(20:24):
design clear to the reviewers.
Is it a difference of opinion?
You know, and that happens a lot wherethey got it, but they just don't agree
with you or they're suggesting somethingthat you know is not gonna work.
And I always tell my applicants, make yourapplication better based on the critiques.
(20:44):
Take the stuff that youagree with and improve it.
If there's something you reallydon't agree with, then talk to your
colleagues, talk to your mentor.
You know, am I missing something here?
Am I not seeing the whole picture?
And if all, if your team all agreesthat the approach you're taking is the
right one and the reviewer is suggestingsomething that's not going to work, then
(21:09):
don't change your application, just, uh,you know, unless you really agree that
it's going to make a stronger proposal.
And the reason for that is that you'renot guaranteed in the next review to
have all three of those reviewers.
You know, you'll probablyget at least one reviewer.
You may get two, but it's veryunlikely you'll get three.
And I have seen too many times wherein the revision, a new reviewer will
(21:34):
say, well, I don't like this change.
I thought the originalapproach was the best.
So you need to improve andmake your application better.
That doesn't mean youignore the criticism.
And what you can do is politelysay, yes, you know, we can, we
have considered this approach.
We've tried it, it doesn'twork for these reasons.
(21:55):
However, we're going to try toaddress this concern by adding these
other elements to the proposal.
So don't ignore it, but just youand your mentor and team need
to make your application better.
Marguerite Matthews (22:10):
So it's not about pleasing the old reviewers,
it's about really thinking abouthow to make the application stronger
and possibly even make more sensefor you and for the science.
So I think that's really good advice.
Laura Mamounas (22:22):
And clearer.
If it's a grantsmanship issue, you know,maybe you can add more preliminary data
to address some of the concerns that wereraised that you might not agree with.
You need to justify the approach, bepolite, be respectful, but make your
application better because you are not,you're unlikely you'll get all three
of those reviewers, you, you know, andyou you're going to have a new panel
(22:45):
there and you need to have a strongerapplication put in front of them.
Lauren Ullric (22:48):
Um, so one of the things that we talked about in a
previous episode was choosing whichInstitute or which study section
you should send your application to.
And so we talked about thatyou can always request certain
institutes or, or study sections.
Um, that's not a guarantee, but they tryto, CSR tries to honor that when possible.
(23:10):
When should an applicant considertrying to go to a different Institute
or a different study section on their,either their resubmission or their
new submission of an application.
Laura Mamounas (23:23):
So I'll start with talking about study sections.
So again, and we talked about thisearlier, you need to work with your
program director to figure out whatare the nature of the criticisms.
So if the reviewers really likedthe overall approach, they think
is significant, exciting, you know,they think that um, you're a great
(23:45):
applicant, your mentoring team is really,really good and you feel like you can
respond well to the critiques in yourresubmission then you want to go back
to that same study section, right?
But if you get the sense that it was,you know, that study section just doesn't
get it; they're just, and no matterwhat I do, they're not going to get it.
(24:08):
Then that's the time to talk toyour program director and your team,
your investigator team, and yourmentor about whether a new study
section would be more appropriate.
But it's a tough one because thenyou have to ask yourself, do I submit
a revised application but go to anew study section or do I start from
(24:28):
scratch and put in a new application?
And you know, these are toughquestions because there's
pros and cons to doing both.
If you put in a revised applicationthat it goes to a new study section,
you're pretty much guaranteed withstarting with a whole new review
team and they're going to have theirown culture and their own take.
They're going to have their owncriticisms that you know you didn't
(24:53):
have previously and this is yourlast chance on the resubmission
for this particular application.
Um, and so, you know, you mightwant to think, well, maybe
I'll put in a new application.
However, with a new application, you know,you don't have really the opportunity to
respond to the critiques and the reviewersaren't going to see your response
(25:15):
and how well you've addressed them.
So it's a really tough sort ofquestion and you know, it's going to
be on a proposal by proposal basisand it's going to have, you know,
involve you and your co-investigatorsand your mentor, um, to kind of sort
through that and make that decision.
In terms of institutes, hopefully youwill have selected the right or it will
(25:37):
be assigned and you will have selectedthe right Institute to start with.
And it's, it's very rare, fortunately,that, you know, at the resubmission stage,
um, you, you come to the realizationthat your Institute is not the right one.
It can happen.
And, um, it may be that, you know, yougot a really good score and your Institute
(25:59):
says, well, we're just not interested inthis area and no matter what score you
get, your, we're not going to fund it.
Now, fortunately, this almostnever happens at NINDS.
We, you know, when we're very agnosticabout, about areas of research,
if we have accepted an applicationand it does well in review, it's
(26:20):
very rare we wouldn't fund it.
But there may be other institutes thatuh, you know, do make these kinds of
decisions independent of the score.
And in that case, you know, you needto talk to the program director of
that Institute and you also needto talk to the program director at
the new Institute because it's a very,um, involved, complicated process of
(26:42):
transferring an application that'sin mid, in mid review of the speak.
Lauren U (26:47):
And I should note that for a lot of like training and fellowship
applications, you really have no choice.
There's one study section that reviewsall of those applications and it's them
or the highway, but when you're thinkingabout say, the R01 space, you have a
lot more flexibility in terms of ofwhere you're directing your application.
Beth-Anne Sieb (27:09):
I would say that it's always good to know program
officers across different institutesas well as other information
including the funding level thateach Institute is is funding toward.
I think on a resubmission, forNINDS as mentioned, we have very
broad interest in neuroscience.
If there's a really significant changein your aims, if you completely rehaul
(27:31):
them--and to give you an example,let's say that you're doing research
on Parkinson's disease and you switch,based on reviewer critiques, to a
real focus on aging, we would stillaccept that and the National Institute
on Aging may also be interested.
So there are areas of overlap and Ithink it's very important, I'll say this
probably three more times during thepodcast, to contact your program officers
(27:55):
and to understand what your options are.
We're all here to work with you.
We're not going to, you know, get upset ifyou ask questions about another Institute.
We all, all programofficers know each other.
We've worked together and we referpeople across institutes all the time.
What's most important to us is thatyou're successful as an applicant.
We want you to get that grant.
We want you to do your research andwe will help you make the contacts,
(28:18):
interpret your summary statement,do whatever we can do on our end
to get you through this process.
Laur (28:24):
I want to agree with that.
I mean our goal is not that NINDSfunds your application, but just
that the NIH funds your applicationand we're, we're happy if another
Institute is really interested inyour proposal and they have a better
pay line or funding level than we do.
We're more than happy to have you, youknow, work with that other Institute.
Marguerite Matthews (28:43):
Yeah, it all contributes to the
greater research enterprise.
Well, thank you all for joiningus today and sharing your wisdom
on resubmitting an application.
Can I ask each of you to give ourlisteners one last piece of advice?
Shardell Sprigg (28:59):
My advice would be to resubmit and, and just take
advantage of the resubmission processby resubmitting your application.
If you're not successful, donot accept it as a defeat.
Look at that summary statement, answerthose critiques and you know, revise
and put in a better application.
Beth-An (29:20):
My advice is to do what Shardell says and also to please call us.
We're here to help you as much as we can.
Laura Mamounas (29:27):
And I would say, you know, if for whatever reason
you don't get your fellowship oryour career award, don't despair.
It's not the end of your career.
You know, when you go on and you'rean assistant professor or, and you're
putting in your R01, no one's going tolook back and say, Oh my gosh, you didn't
get that F 31 or 32 or the K award.
(29:49):
You're, you'll be fine.
And you'll have learned a lot inthe process of writing a grant.
It will help you throughoutyour whole career
Marguerite Matthews (29:57):
and you'll be able to help your mentees
that are working in your lab.
Lauren, what about you?
Lauren (30:03):
Um, I guess I would say from my perspective, one of the most
important things is making sure to buildthe resubmission into your timeline.
Because everything we just talkedabout is a moot point if you time out.
Um, especially in the trainingspace, you're often eligible
only for a limited window.
I talk to applicants all the time thatsay, Oh, I just need to do one more
experiment or I'm not quite ready.
(30:26):
And then they keep pushing it and pushingit and pushing it, and then they only
have one submission cycle that they'rereally eligible for and they, if they
don't get it on that try, they don'thave the chance to take advantage of all
of the ways in which the resubmissionprocess makes your science stronger.
Um, and then also realize that you can'tusually resubmit the exact next cycle.
(30:49):
You often don't get thesummary statement back in time.
And so you have to actuallyplan to submit two cycles.
So if you submit in the spring,you won't be able to resubmit
until the fall of that year.
So it's a long time to be thinkingahead and making sure that you
are able to do that resubmission
Laura (31:09):
and I'd like to follow up on timelines and one thing that I think
we didn't bring up, and that is whenyou're doing your, either your initial
application or your resubmission, giveyourself plenty of time to work on that.
Get it done well before the grantdeadline so that you can have your
colleagues and your mentors andmaybe your worst enemies look through
(31:32):
it, critique it, tear it apart,
Marguerite Matthews (31:36):
be the reviewer number three,
Laura Mamounas (31:38):
be the reviewer number three, so that you don't--you
know, because you're really involvedin writing this, you're, you're,
you're in the middle of the weeds.
But somebody else you know who maynot be a perfect expert in your area
will say, I don't understand this orthis isn't clear and give you a chance
to put in a much better application.
Lauren Ullrich (31:58):
And Marguerite, your advice.
Marguerite Matthews (32:00):
Yes.
So my grad advisor recently tweeted,the thing she noticed when she's
looking at grants is that inexperiencedgrant writers aim to impress while
experienced grant writers aim to explain.
So if you're trying to impress, you willtake it personally if the reviewers don't
like your application or they find flaws.
Um, but if you're aiming to explain,you'll take those, um, that summary
(32:23):
statement as constructive feedback and away for you to improve your application.
Um, and perhaps it's just a question ofnot explaining it, um, in a manner that
really was helpful or maybe you couldhave been more clear or maybe the science
as strong as it could be and now is anopportunity for you really to be able
to show your ideas in a different way.
(32:46):
Um, so again, try notto take this personally.
You know, as, as Lauramentioned, be upset about it.
You know, you didn't get funded, it sucks.
It's not a good feeling.
And then pick yourself right back upand go ahead and do what you need to do.
Because if you want a career inresearch, this is going to be part
of your life and you're always goingto have to try to explain to others
(33:08):
why your research is valuable.
So the sooner you start and build sort of,um, a resilience, you'll, you'll see that
it is not a, no one is out to get you.
Um, they just want to makeyou a better researcher and,
and have stronger research.
Lauren Ul (33:29):
So that's all we have time for today on Building Up the Nerve.
Thank you again to our guestsfor sharing their expertise.
And thank you also to program director, DrBob Riddle for our theme song and music.
We'll see you next episode when wetackle the issuance of the grant award.
You can find past episodes of thispodcast and many more grant application
(33:50):
resources on the web at ninds.nih.gov.
Marguerite Matthews (33:54):
Email us questions at NINDSNervePod@NIH.gov.
And be sure to subscribe to us onApple Podcasts or your favorite podcast
app so you don't miss an episode.
We'll see you next time.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
The MeatEater Podcast
Building on the belief that a deeper understanding of the natural world enriches all of our lives, host Steven Rinella brings an in-depth and relevant look at all outdoor topics including hunting, fishing, nature, conservation, and wild foods. Filled with humor, irreverence, and things that will surprise the hell out of you, each episode welcomes a diverse group of guests who add their own expertise to the vast world of the outdoors. Part of The MeatEater Podcast Network.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by Audiochuck Media Company.