January 8, 2021 • 53 mins
The National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke’s Building Up the Nerve is a podcast for neuroscience trainees that takes you through the components of a grant application with successful awardees. We know that applying for NIH funding can be daunting, but we’re here to help—it’s our job!
In this episode, our grantee guests share insight on how to choose the right funding announcement and NIH Institute, how to approach the different components of the application, how to involve their mentors in the process, and other great advice on how to approach applying for NIH funding.
Featuring Tayler Sheahan, PhD, Postdoctoral Scholar at University of Pittsburgh, Sweta Agrawal, PhD, Postdoctoral Fellow at University of Washington, and George Vidal, PhD, Assistant Professor of Biology at James Madison University.
Transcript available at http://ninds.buzzsprout.com/. This episode has been edited since its original publication.
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 podcastfor neuroscience trainees that takes
you through the components of a grantapplication with successful awardees.
We know that applying for NIH fundingcan be daunting, but we're here to help.
It's our job.
(00:23):
Hi, I'm Lauren Ullrich, aprogram director at NINDS.
Marguerite Matthews (00:27):
And I'm Marguerite Matthews, a scientific
program manager at NINDS.
And we're your hosts today.
Lauren U (00:32):
Welcome to season two! Last season, we discussed the stages of
the grant cycle with NINDS staff, andthis season, we're going to delve into
the different components of the grantapplication with successful awardees.
Marguerite Matthe (00:46):
That's right.
And this episode will focus onwhat to do before you apply.
We will touch on choosing the rightfunding announcement and how to find
the right NIH Institute, the differentparts of the application, where to
find resources and how to approachconversations with your research mentor.
Lauren Ullri (01:04):
And of course, our disclaimer from last season still applies.
Everything we talk about mayonly be relevant for NINDS.
So if you're applying to a differentNIH Institute, it's always best to
check with them about their policies.
Our guests today are Dr. Taylor Sheahan,Dr. Sweta Agrawal and Dr. George Vidal.
(01:27):
So let's get startedwith our introductions.
So Taylor, you want to go first?
Tayler Sheahan (01:31):
Sure.
So thank you for having me.
I am a third year post-doc in thePittsburgh Center for Pain Research
at the University of Pittsburgh.
And my research interests are broadlyfocused on understanding how the
nervous system detects sensory inputlike pain and itch, and then how
that information is processed andencoded within the nervous system.
And currently I'm focusing on neuronswithin the spinal cord that process
(01:55):
pain and itch using rodent models.
I first applied for NINDSfunding as a graduate student.
I applied for an F31, which wasnot awarded, but was still a really
important learning experience for me.
As a post-doc I applied forand received a position on an
institutional training grant or a T32.
(02:16):
And I also applied for an F32as a postdoc, which was awarded.
And I've also been extremely fortunateto have received an LRP or loan repayment
program award to help pay down my studentdebt, which has been very amazing.
And I'm currently gearingup to apply for a K99.
My favorite thing to dooutside of the lab is running.
(02:39):
I think it's a really greatway to meet new people and to
explore and learn about the city.
Sweta (02:44):
My name is Sweta Agrawal.
I'm a fourth year post-doc atthe University of Washington
in John Tuthill's lab.
I study the neural circuitsunderlying proprioception.
So I work in the fruitfly as my model system.
And specifically I'm looking at neuralcircuits in the fly's version of the
spinal cord, the ventral nerve cord, andlooking at how those central circuits
(03:10):
integrate proprioceptive information fromdifferent proprioceptors on the fly leg.
A lot of what I like about proprioceptionis that it's a sense that's very
important for motor control.
There are some people that havelost all sense of proprioception
and for them performing even thesimplest tasks is pretty difficult.
And so I just find it fascinating tolook at the sensory-motor transformations
(03:32):
that underlie that kind of sense.
As far as NIH awards.
So I started applying forNIH awards as a post-doc.
I applied for and did not getan F32 and then a K01, and then
finally was successful when Iapplied for the K99 this past year.
Like Taylor mentioned, all thosefailed attempts were very helpful.
(03:55):
And I think definitely helpedme get the K99 in the end.
Part of what kind of complicated thingswas that regarding the F32, I was applying
as part of the cohort when NINDS changeda little bit of how the F32 operated.
So we can talk about that later ifwe want, or if anybody has questions
about that, but yeah, in general, whileit sucked not getting those awards,
(04:18):
it was still helpful to have gonethrough the process and be familiar
with it when I did apply for the K99.
As far as hobbies outside thelab, I'm a pretty avid mushroom
hunter, which goes along with mylove of hiking and the outdoors.
Lauren Ullrich (04:33):
Oh, that's neat.
What's your favorite mushroom?
Sweta Agr (04:35):
It kind of depends on the use case, I guess, but there's this
really cool mushroom that's also likehard to find called the cauliflower
mushroom, where it just looks like abundle of egg noodles in the ground.
And yeah, it's just like,it's very delicious.
You can kind of use it like egg noodles.
It has the same texture, butit's actually made a mushroom.
George Vidal (05:01):
Hi everybody.
My name is George Vidal.
I am an assistant professor atJames Madison University, where I
am running a newly independent lab.
I started my job here in 2016.
And right before that, I was actuallya PhD student in Stanford university
(05:22):
in their neuroscience program.
And that's where I receivedmy first NIH award.
It was actually through an institutionaltraining grant that supported me
for the first couple of years ofmy graduate school experience.
Then later in my graduate career,I applied for an F31 award.
And I actually was awarded that on thefirst try, which I heard was very rare.
(05:46):
And then afterwards, I came tothis position and looked for
a few different opportunities.
One of them was a fantastic one, which isK01 career development award for faculty.
And that's a unique one that I startedan application for back in 2017, was
(06:08):
unsuccessful the first time aroundmade a lot of changes, and then in the
second time around, I was awarded that.
That's a five-year award.
My lab is most interested in understandingjust the development of the cerebral
cortex in general, specifically excitatoryneurons, excitatory pyramidal neurons,
(06:30):
and our angle of that is actuallylooking at autism risk genes, because
many of them are associated withdysfunctions in the cerebral cortex.
So the way we look at it is we look at onerisk gene at a time and try to understand
all of the anatomical, the physiological,and behavioral consequences of that.
(06:53):
Yeah.
So outside of the lab I think one ofmy favorite things to do is art in
general, it could be music, it couldbe painting or drawing or designing,
but I think the one that is the mostuseful right now is culinary arts.
I love cooking at home, and I thinkeveryone on this podcast by being
associated with some form of science, uh,is actually probably a really good cook.
Marguerite Matthews (07:18):
What's your favorite dish to cook?
George Vidal (07:21):
I have no idea.
It's, it's really hard because every,every new recipe is a, is an exploration
of something new, maybe a new cultureor new technique, it never really ends.
So I don't know.
I don't have a favorite.
Marguerite Matthews (07:43):
All right.
So how did you decide which fundingopportunity to apply for and how
did you find out about the award?
So, also thinking about, did you goand find these things on your own?
Did you have someone guiding you?
What was your general process?
Sweta Agr (08:02):
So, like I mentioned, I had applied for an F32 and
K01 before I applied for my K99.
And in some ways how I got tothe K99 is a product of that.
So like I mentioned, when I appliedfor the F32, NINDS had, uh, I was
sort of in this in-between phase wherethey were, they transitioned it to
(08:22):
something that you could apply forin the first year of your postdoc.
Whereas before I think you couldapply for it up until maybe like
year three or something like that.
And so when I submitted myapplication, I was towards the end
of my first year and then got agood score, but it wasn't funded,
but then I couldn't reapply for it.
Uh, so that was then what led me to tryapplying for this K01 that they have
(08:45):
for postdocs that seemed like it wasfilling in that gap between the F32
as NINDS had it now, and then the K99.
But then I was part of one of thefirst cohorts applying for that.
And I found that it was kindof mixed as far as, um, the
feedback that I got from that.
And so my PI and I talked about it alittle bit and we decided that it would
(09:09):
be best if I just waited another year ortwo till I had some more data, um, and
was more of a senior postdoc and couldthen think about applying for just the K99
and not worry about the K01 and figuringout what this new funding mechanism was.
And then as far as the K99, thereare a couple different versions of
the K99 that one could apply for.
(09:31):
I was debating between sort ofthe normal K99, and then the brain
initiative K99, which is, I endedup applying for the latter one.
And part of the reason for that was that,uh, in the summer of 2019, I actually went
to the Gordon conference for Neuroethologywhere I met a program officer from
(09:51):
NINDS Karen David, who actually helpsoversee the BRAIN initiative K99.
And through talking with her, Irealized that the BRAIN initiative
K99 was really a nice fit for me.
It also has a slightly lengthenedeligibility window for post-docs, which
meant that I could then wait a littlebit to apply and still be eligible to
(10:13):
resubmit an application depending onwhat happened the first time around.
Um, and so, yeah, so that's how I endedup settling on my funding mechanism.
Lauren Ullr (10:22):
It's great that you sort of foreshadowed one of our, our
other questions about the benefits oftalking to the program officer, which
I feel like was the entire, uh, takehome message of season one [laughter]
, but, um, we can cover that later.
So...
Tayler (10:37):
I would say my decision about which FOA to apply for was a
lot more straightforward because I wasalready in that cohort of post-docs
who knew that we were eligible eitherone year up to beginning the postdoc
or one year after the start date.
So I was made aware of that from otherpostdocs in the lab that I worked
with as a graduate student, but itwas something that I was discussing
(11:01):
with potential postdoc advisorswhen I was interviewing with them.
So that was a conversation that wehad and kind of started to talk about
when we would submit that application.
And I ended up submitting itthe first application cycle
from when I started my position.
It ended up being a little bit toodifficult to try to juggle, wrapping
up my PhD, you know, submitting thosepublications, um, while, you know, trying
(11:26):
to get another foot out the door andwrite a grant application on a new topic.
So, but yeah, I made a point to applysuch that I would have an opportunity
for a resubmission cycle if I needed it.
Lauren Ullrich (11:37):
Yeah.
That's so important.
We see so many trainees, waitand wait and wait, cause they
never feel like they're ready.
And then, you know, they get a goodbut not fundable score and they don't
have the opportunity to resubmit.
So we always counsel people tosort of work backwards and try
and make sure they build in thatresubmission time, just in case.
Tayle (11:57):
I think another important point that kind of comes from the switch
to a shortened eligibility window ishow much preliminary data is required.
But with the new, shortertimeframe, like there really isn't
emphasis on preliminary data.
So it really is just to your benefitto go all in as early as possible.
George (12:13):
To, uh, to add to that.
Actually I wanted to echo whatwas just being said about building
in time for a resubmission.
The eligibility window for the facultyK01 is only in, I think it's, uh, first
three years of the faculty appointment.
And so it was really important thatonce I identified the opportunity
(12:36):
that I went in with a first submissionas soon as possible, and then I
used the comments from that tobuild a really strong resubmission.
And actually getting to why I chosethe faculty K01, I actually, if you
noticed from the little intro thatI gave, I actually did my PhD and
(13:00):
graduated with my PhD in 2016, but Ialso started my faculty job in 2016.
So that meant that I didn't havethe opportunity to do a postdoc
in between those two things.
And so like, I couldn't build things withthat F32 or K99 or anything like that.
And this opportunity was fantasticbecause the idea was to build a network
(13:25):
of mentors that would take me and kindof launch my independent research career.
And so once I saw that was what theaward was for, and I talked to my
program officer about whether or notsomeone at my institution would be
eligible for applying for somethinglike that, and then I saw the answer
(13:48):
was yes, then I made sure to apply assoon as possible so that I could get a
resubmission in there if I needed it to.
Lauren Ullric (13:55):
So Sweta, did you have something you wanted to add?
Sweta Agra (13:58):
Um, yeah, I was just going to add that one nice thing
about being able to apply earlyenough that you can resubmit is that
you will often learn a lot from thefeedback you get the first time around.
And so for that F32 I'd applied for,um, my PI was a new PI, he had just
started his job and we didn't realizethat because he was so junior that
(14:20):
it would actually work against myapplication if I didn't have a co-advisor.
And that seemed to be the mainthing that was really criticized
about that application.
So if I had been able to resubmit, Ithink with a simple change, I might've
actually gotten it the second time around.
And so it was heartbreaking to beso close and then to not really
(14:41):
be able to do anything about it.
Lauren Ullrich (14:43):
Yeah.
And we mentioned a little bit earlierabout the different eligibility criteria.
So for example, the BRAIN K99 has afive-year eligibility window versus
the parent K99, and that theseeligibilities, can be very strict, like,
Sweta like you ran into with the F32.
And so just sort of wondering, like,how you navigated that process and were
(15:08):
there any other surprises that cameup or things that you, um, you know,
didn't really realize to think aboutbefore you started reading the FOA?
Tayler She (15:18):
Now, as I'm starting to think about applying for a
K99, I had a lot of questions.
When is the end of my PhD, or whenis that--when did my K clock start?
So I had a lot of questions andwent to different people who
had served on K99 panels anddidn't really get a clear answer.
So I ultimately emailed Steve Korn and,you know, got a good answer after I
(15:43):
sent like these are all my dates, when Idefended, when my PhD was accepted, when I
started my postdoc, like which one is it?
And he was just a really great resourceto clarify that confusion for me.
Marguerite Matthew (15:55):
And just for our listeners who may have tuned in
to season one and got a chance tomeet Steve Korn, Steve Korn is the
director of the training and careerdevelopment office here at the NINDS.
George Vidal (16:09):
Yeah.
I just wanted to add that whenI was applying to the K01, the
faculty K01, I wasn't aware that Iactually could talk to two different
program officers about, about it.
Um, one is my scientific program officerand really helped me to understand how
(16:31):
to, uh, how to propose and understandthe relevance of what I was proposing
in my, in my research proposal.
Um, and then the other program officerthat I talked to was the overall kind
of career development program officerthat's currently Michelle Jones-London.
(16:53):
And she has been a wonderful resource forme during the time when I was applying.
And, uh, and now during the timeof the award, um, so understanding
that I have two, two people thatI can talk to about two separate
things has been really helpful.
Lauren Ullrich (17:11):
Yeah.
And that, I think that's a little bit of aunique setup that we have at NINDS where,
um, we have the training program directorsthat we sort of oversee the program and
the career development side of things.
But then we work with the peoplethat understand the science the
best, and that's the program directorthat holds the scientific portfolio.
(17:33):
Um, but it does mean that you havetwo separate people to talk to.
Marguerite Matth (17:37):
And I think we have really great synergy here at
NINDS between the different officesand the different program staff that
handle these things, um, both onthe scientific side, as well as the
training and career development side.
Um, and we work as a team because wewant to give you the best information.
(17:57):
And if there's any sort of discrepancy,we try to work together to make sure
that you are receiving a unified, um,stance or voice on particular issues.
So we hope that you folks continueto want to reach out to us.
And if I'm not the right person to betalking to, I will make sure you get
to the right person, be it someoneelse in my office or someone on the
(18:19):
scientific side, or at least that'ssomething we try to work on, is to make
sure that you are getting the rightinformation with the right expert at NIH.
George Vidal (18:27):
I agree.
To second that idea, you know, what,during my resubmission, especially
I viewed both my scientific programofficer and my, and my career
development program officer as a team.
And oftentimes I would hear from themtogether and talk to them together.
So just getting, getting that kind ofunified response was extremely helpful
(18:53):
during that resubmission process.
Sweta A (18:55):
I was just going to say one other thing, as you're thinking
about eligibility windows, um, is tojust keep in mind, at least for the
BRAIN initiative K99, it was somewhatlaid out as far as when you might expect
the grant to actually be reviewed.
And so it's just helpful to think aboutthe timeline about when you might be
getting that first score feedback,um, before you can reapply and to
(19:20):
just make sure again, that you leaveenough room for those next stages for
when you do need to resubmit, so likeenough time to get the feedback, um,
and then to be able to change yourapplication in response to that feedback.
Laur (19:34):
Yeah, that's a good point.
A lot of times applicants think they'llbe able to apply the very next cycle.
Um, but it's unlikely you'll even getthe summary statement back in time.
But even if you do, you might have aweek or two before it's due, and that's
just not enough time to, to reallyput together a good resubmission.
And so planning on it's going tobe two cycles before you're able to
(20:00):
resubmit and sort of working backwardsfrom there is really important.
Marguerite Matthew (20:04):
So it sounds like each of you did contact a
program officer either at NINDs orsomewhere else before applying, but
how did you know who to contact?
Sweta Agrawal (20:15):
For me?
I was lucky enough that I was able tomeet Karen David at this conference.
And so it was wonderful tohave some face time with her.
Um, and also a friend of mine hadjust received the same FOA, the
BRAIN initiative K99, and she hadbeen working with Karen David and
had good things to say about her.
So that was--like, it was just,it's hard to like have something
(20:38):
like that just fall into your lap,so that was kind of opportunistic.
Um, and then otherwise I did go on theFOA for the BRAIN initiative K99 and
at the bottom they list who the programofficer is, different people to contact
depending on what your question is about.
And so I did then, uh, reach out to,for example, Michelle Jones-London.
Tayler She (21:01):
Similar to us Sweta, I also utilized the NINDS websites
and also the LRP website when Iwas preparing those applications.
And like Marguerite mentioned, like,you know, I reached out to maybe
not the ideal person to answer myquestion initially, but my emails have
always been forwarded to the personwho would know the correct answer.
(21:22):
So I, you know, I try my best tocontact the person who I think should
answer it, but know that it willprobably end up in the right hands
if that wasn't, you know, the perfectperson to answer that question.
Marguerite Matthews (21:34):
Right.
And even if you contact the person listedin the funding announcement or some other
place, it may not have been updated,people move to different institutes
or on to different job opportunities.
So we do try to do a goodjob of making sure you're
connected with the right people.
And please, please be persistent.
(21:56):
If for some reason you do reach outto a program person and they don't
respond to you, try to find someoneelse because it may be a situation
of just that person is no longer withthat particular office and maybe the
contact information wasn't updated,um, or they're out sick unexpectedly,
all kinds of things can happen.
So we do want you to be persistentin trying to contact someone,
(22:19):
um, because this is our job.
Our job is to talk with you andmake sure that you have all the
information you need to apply and havea competitive application submitted.
George (22:30):
Something that was very helpful for me in, uh, in first reaching
out was actually to have, a very shortstatement, not even a specific aims
page or anything, but, um, it wasa very small statement about what I
intended to do, where my scientificexpertise lied, where I am in my career.
Um, because then when I, I use the FOAannouncement online to first contact
(22:55):
the program officer that was, thatwas listed--and I think that that was
Michelle Jones London at the time--whenI reached out to her and I had that,
she was very easily able to connectme with the right program officer for
the scientific part of my application.
Lauren Ullr (23:13):
Yeah, that's such a good point because a lot of these FOAs,
NINDS is the only one signed onto it.
And if you don't fall within ourmission, we legally cannot fund you.
And so making sure that you'reeven with at the right institute
is a, is a great first step.
Sweta Agr (23:34):
I don't know how true this necessarily is, but I was told,
well, one, I was encouraged faculty in mydepartment to contact the program officer.
So I knew that this would be a goodidea going into the whole process.
Um, but I was encouraged to have atleast a rough draft of my specific
aims, ready to send to them.
Again, so they could kind ofmake sure I fell within the
(23:55):
purview of the particular FOA.
And also I was told, never cold callthem, but you always email them and
let them set up a phone call with you.
So that's the protocol that I'vefollowed, um, with each program
officer that I've contacted.
Lauren U (24:10):
Yeah, I would say, um, it's always best to email first and
set up a time just so that, you knowyou have their undivided attention
and they're not, you know, on theirway out the door and they have time
to review your aims and read themand be prepared for the conversation.
So yes, we greatly appreciateemails and not cold calls.
So once you sort of, you had decidedwhich FOA to apply to, how did you
(24:35):
approach putting the grant together?
Did you start in a certain place?
Did you start with certain documentsbefore moving on to others?
And how long did it take youto put that grant together?
Sweta Agra (24:48):
So I, um, first made sure to just go through the FOA
and read some of the language thatwas on there, about what they were
looking for in the BRAIN initiativeK99 and different aspects of science
that they were trying to emphasize.
And again, talking--like Karen David atthat conference also had put together
(25:10):
a little presentation about applyingfor BRAIN initiative grants, not
specifically a K99, it was more broadthan that, but it kind of gave me a sense
of some of the goals and the types ofresearch that they were interested in.
And then I do think that it'simportant to have kind of a
cohesive message to the grant.
(25:31):
And I also talked to a bunch of peopleabout the K99 and the program officers
and it was clear that the purpose ofthis funding mechanism is to provide
some training, like you do want to applyto it and demonstrating how the, what
you propose in the K99 will help trainyou, but it's only supposed to be about
(25:52):
two years as a post-doc, and so you'realso supposed to be on this cusp of
transition, but make the case that likethis little bit of training is going to
help get you over that cusp and to reallymake you a competitive applicant for
the job market, the academic job market.
And so with all that in mind, thatwas kind of thinking about what is it
that I could use, what final bit oftraining, and I'd always wanted to try
(26:16):
and pursue a computational project.
And so I made that the main focusof the research part of my grant, as
well as the training part of my grant.
And so once I had that figured out whatwas going to be kind of the core message
of my grant, it felt a lot easier forall the other pieces to fall into place.
Um, and then of course, there'slots of little documents that go
(26:36):
along with any NIH application.
And so for that, I was very glad tohave had these failed past attempts
that I could cannibalize and use a lotof those other documents to kind of
fill out the rest of the application.
Tayler Sheahan (26:49):
I'll talk about my experience with
preparing an F32 application.
So I started my postdoc knowing thatlike right out of the gates I would need
to write this F application in termsof, you know, the eligibility window.
And I think I probably ended upspending or allotting myself around
two months to work on the application.
(27:11):
And since I was new to the lab, oneof my first steps was just kind of
diving into the literature and gettinga sense of where there's a gap in
knowledge that I might want to address.
But then also I made a point tocollect a number of F32 applications
from labmates and friends and othercolleagues that were both successful
and unsuccessful to get a sense ofwhat a scope of an F32 looks like.
(27:36):
And then around that point, I startedjust bouncing ideas around with my
mentor about a proposal that wouldnot only lead to potential significant
findings to the field, but alsoentail a lot of really great training
opportunities for me during my post-doc.
And in terms of the sections that Ispent the most time on, obviously the
(27:56):
research strategy was the bulk of my time.
So I worked on that, got a good draftgoing so that I would be able to send
that out to people to get their feedback.
And then while I was waiting for feedbackor just needed a break from thinking
about science, I would do those otherdocuments that Sweta was talking about.
And, you know, I, again, learningfrom previous grant application
(28:19):
submissions when I prepared my F31,and remember, I did not have a sense
at all of how long those additionaldocuments take and I really vastly
underestimated how long those additionaldocuments take, but they're still
very critical to your applicationbecause it is a training grant.
So it was nice for my F32 to have, youknow, a template for all those additional
(28:41):
documents from my first F31 application,
George (28:46):
uh, for me in, in doing the K01 faculty application, I think
the biggest thing was reading theFOA really carefully because in there
I realized that the point of themechanism wasn't only for funding the
science, but also funding the person.
(29:08):
And so that person is, you know, unique.
It's a unique person at a uniqueinstitution with unique institutional
commitments and environments, andall of that together forms this,
this thing that can be developed.
Right.
And so once I understood that therewere actually--it wasn't just about the
(29:29):
science, it was also about where am Iin my career and where, what gaps do I
have to fill, get to where I need to go?
And how is that going tohelp the NINDS mission?
All of that helped me reallyframe everything in the right way.
The other thing I wanted to say, andthis is just unsolicited advice, and just
(29:52):
hearing what we've been talking about isto really not be shy and get over your own
inhibitions to contact potential mentors,you know, either at your institution or
at nearby institutions, or also to contactyour program officers and work through
all of these things with everybody.
(30:13):
I learned at a little bit thehard way, because I wasn't--I'm
kind of an introverted person.
And so that when I, applying the firsttime around, I had some mentors and,
um, I had talked to my program officer,but I could have done a lot more.
And that's what I didduring the resubmission.
And I also had a lot ofencouragement from people around
(30:33):
me to build that mentor network.
Before I went into my resubmission.
As for keeping track of thedifferent parts of the application,
everyone's saying that there are alot of parts, it's the same for me.
And if you've done this before,actually they're a little Gantt charts,
they're organizational charts that,that let you list every item that you
(30:56):
need to complete, every little task.
And I just wrote out all of the documents.
When I got to the research strategyportion, which is a very big deal, I broke
that down into the different specificaims, or maybe the introduction and the
specific aims that I was going to do.
And then I laid that out overthe course of several months.
I know that in the first application, itdefinitely took me, from the time that
(31:22):
I was considering applying to the timewhen I actually applied, it was about
six months and in the resubmission, Ithink it was more than that actually.
Part of that was because I was waitingfor a publication to be in press and also
I was talking to a couple of mentors,um, and adding them onto my application.
So yeah, give yourself a lotof time, organize things, and
(31:46):
plan it out way in advance.
Find your mentors, find morementors than you think you need.
And talk to your program officermore than you think you need,
because you probably need it more.
Sweta Agra (31:59):
Yeah, I would say, I think I took only about two months
of like really, from when I was like,yes, I'm definitely going to apply
for this next funding mechanism--soI think I decided that in August and
then was going to apply for the Octoberdeadline--but I did spend pretty much
all of September very focused on thegrant and it was a little bit rushed.
(32:24):
So I would recommendspending more time than that.
I think I had at least already hadbeen thinking it over in my head and
mulling it, so that helped me hit theground running a little bit, but I
would definitely recommend not beingquite so delayed in your process.
And I echo George's advice to findmentors and Tayler, too, mentioned about
finding other example applications.
That was super helpful for me to find onesthat were closer to my area of research
(32:49):
or ones that were further from my area ofresearch and to just have, um, a couple
of different templates to kind of seewhat people have talked about, especially
for the R00 part of the K99 award.
It was hard for me to wrap my headaround to what level I should be
talking about this future research.
Um, especially when I don'tknow where that would be.
Marguerite Ma (33:10):
Now, how, how did you incorporate your mentor into this?
Did you make a plan beforeyou decided to apply?
Did you sort of decide that you were goingto apply and then ask your mentor for help
and how involved were they in the process?
Tayler (33:23):
I've been very fortunate to have super supportive mentors for
both my graduate and postdoc work.
So they have already wanted to playan active role in discussing what the
research will be like and how to reallymaximize my training in their labs.
But I think that's really criticalfor something like an F32, because
it is a training grant and yourmentors should be on board with the
(33:45):
training plan that you're proposing.
And I would say I had pretty frequentconversations with my mentor, Sarah
Ross, during the application process.
And that would be in the form of, youknow, having very iterative conversations
about what would make good, specific aims,but also what training opportunities or
like technical training opportunitiesshould we work into the application to
(34:08):
really develop my scientific toolbox.
And then also training opportunitiesfor my professional development.
And I would say it was a pretty goodprocess and exciting process because
together we exchanged a lot of scienceideas, got excited about the project,
then also just really mapped out whatthe first three years of my postdoc
(34:29):
would look like and set up goals forone-year, two-year checkpoints and that.
So it was a very helpful processwhether or not I had gotten the award.
I think it was a goodopportunity to discuss goals
and expectations with my mentor.
George (34:44):
I completely agree with that idea that as you're applying for
the award is actually an amazing trainingopportunity, in a way, to involve your
mentors more in your own development.
So it'll, it'll always do good.
Um, I remember the first submission, eventhough it didn't go well, or it wasn't
funded, I grew so much during that time.
(35:07):
And because I was doing the faculty K01,it was important to find a mentor who
had really respect, uh, my independenceand always guard it and basically
acted as someone who would support mewhile I was getting that independence.
So for me, it was, it was in, intalking to my colleagues around
(35:28):
here in my department, I foundone who was particularly, you
know, had a great track record ofmentorship of all different levels of
training, including junior faculty.
And it was very clear just in casualconversations that this was somebody
who was going to really respect who--myidentity as a scientist, and just act
(35:50):
there as a, as a support mechanism toreally push me to, to become a better
scientist and a better professional.
So once I found that, that wasjust through casual conversation,
it was, I wasn't actively lookingfor a mentor, but I guess in
retrospect, I kind of was, right?
Many of these mentor menteerelationships happen very organically.
(36:12):
Um, so once I identified my colleagueas my main mentor in the application,
he actually helped me a lot to identifysome others, maybe think about ways to
connect things or ways to accentuatehow our institution really supports
our research mission in the lab,things of that nature that only he
(36:35):
could provide, because he was in thedepartment for a lot longer than me.
Sweta (36:39):
One nice thing about the K99 is it's an excellent catalyst for
having what should be a very importantconversation with your post-doc mentor
about what is it that you can take fromthe lab and work on in your own lab.
And especially because my advisor,John Tuthill, he's a new PI, I'm one
(37:01):
of his most senior postdocs, neitherof us has any practice at this kind of
conversation or this kind of transition.
And so he had already been veryinvolved in all of my previous grant
applications and is an excellent writer.
So I was set on that front, butthen it was interesting to have
these conversations with him about,um, where he kind of sees the lab
(37:21):
going, about where he thinks are somepromising directions of research, and
to kind of run my own ideas past him.
And so that was important and good andso even if it hadn't worked out and
gotten funded, I think at the very leastI appreciated that it worked as a nice
vehicle for us to have that conversation.
(37:41):
And like I mentioned, because he'sa new PI, I also had to find a
co-advisor for the application.
And since I knew I wanted to improve mycomputational skills, and I knew that the
other advisor would have to be someonewho has a track record of transitioning
post-docs to their own faculty positions,a natural choice ended up being Adrian
(38:02):
Fairhall, who's also in the samedepartment, uh, just down the hall.
And so it was nice.
She was immediately on board and I alsogot to have some nice conversations
with her about ways to get some ofthe training that I was hoping for.
And then also about, as I was fillingout the computational aim in my
grant, she was great to talk to aboutthe methods, since I was definitely
(38:24):
quite a bit less familiar with those.
Lauren Ul (38:27):
Great, and so besides your mentors, did you get any feedback
on your application before yousubmitted it and who did you send it to?
Who did you ask to read it?
Was there anyone who you thoughtwas maybe particularly helpful?
Sweta Agr (38:48):
So I ended up sending my application to another senior
postdoc in the lab, especially formy specific aims, I kind of wanted
to get those nailed down first.
And since that would then form thebasis of what I would flesh out for
the research statement, I spent a lotof time thinking about those specific
aims and working with this other seniorpostdoc in my lab, since I definitely
(39:13):
trust a lot of the ideas he has.
Um, and then also went overit with my two mentors.
Once I had a research statement puttogether, I ended up contacting another
friend of mine who now is a facultymember, um, at Indiana University, so I
was able to send it to him to read overas well as a couple other folks in my lab.
(39:37):
I kind of tried to choose one personwho was less familiar with the
specific questions and then a personwho was a little bit more closer
to the research to try and get bothperspectives on what I had going on.
Um, and then also at the University ofWashington, uh, we actually have this nice
(39:58):
peer mentoring group for K99 applications.
And so I was able to send some otherparts of the application to somebody
in that peer mentoring group, um,that it consists of postdocs from
all different departments at UDub.
And so that was a nice way to get feedbackfrom someone who was in the same boat,
working on the same application, buttotally removed from the type of research,
(40:20):
the funding mechanism and everything, justto kind of get another set of eyes on it.
George Vidal (40:25):
Uh, for, for me in preparing the K01, uh,
the first time around I made amistake and that was, I didn't get
enough people to take a look at itand they would have given me very
timely advice had I done that.
So during the, the resubmission, uh, Iinvolved beside my primary mentor, um,
I also involved my co-mentors as well.
(40:48):
Each of them is in a different, aslightly different subfield than me.
So they gave very interesting,great perspectives that were
extremely useful and also helpedme with my confidence, too.
It really helped to getthat positive feedback, um,
constructive feedback from them.
I also had a, an unusual set of eyestaking a look at it, and those were
(41:11):
my undergrad students in the lab.
They had just been trained on some ofthe techniques and the ideas and in
the lab, but they hadn't been trainedas neuroscientists for very long.
So actually having them read it and askingme questions really helped to open my eyes
to understand where in the applicationI was just being way too jargony and
(41:34):
assuming way too much from my readers,who are really from all across the board.
So their input actually reallyhelped me to break down the ideas
so that they're understandableby basically any, any of my peers
Tayler S (41:49):
similar to both George and Sweta, I had several people read
my application, my primary mentor,of course, as well as my co mentor.
Um, and then in terms of additionalpeople in the lab, I had another
post-doc who is an expert in a techniquethat I proposed, but that was new to
me and was a--very much a trainingcomponent of my application to make
(42:11):
sure what I was saying made sense andwas feasible and how I, like, make
sure I was interpreting the data of theexperiments I was proposing correctly.
And then in terms of just the specificaims, I guess, going back to the start,
when I had my specific aims page, Isent it to another faculty in the pain
center who is maybe like known for givingcritical feedback and as painful as it is
(42:35):
to see a specific aims page torn apart,I would always love that to happen on the
inside before it goes out to the world.
So, definitely got his feedback andit was also convenient because he has
served on NIH grant panels before.
So it's nice to have senior faculty whohave experience being members of review
(42:59):
committees because they have a sense ofwhat might make or break an application.
So I sought--tried to send my applicationsto the most critical eyes that I can,
um, with the hope that they will catchthe weak spots before grant reviewers do.
George Vi (43:14):
Something that helped me psychologically was to try
to seek the most critical eyes.
And, um, that helped me because I knewthat the feedback that I would get
would really get those weak spots.
What I thought was was greatpsychologically was to say, Hey, you
know, I actually explicitly said,"I'mlooking for you to get at those weak
(43:38):
spots. Please identify them for me sothat I can make my application stronger."
And just being really transparent withthat intention really helped my attitudes
towards, towards the critique process.
Marguerite (43:53):
That's really great of you to say, I think we mentioned this,
actually, in season one, but of coursethis is program staff and people think
that, you know, sometimes the advice wegive is not always, um, very realistic,
but clearly, you know, you are someone whobelieves that getting critical feedback
really is a help and not a hindrance.
(44:14):
Um, and that it's not a mark againstyou as a person, as a thinker, as a
scientist, but it gives you an opportunityto perhaps sharpen your message or
make it more clear, or address thingsin a different way that may help the
reader instead of making them focuson some of the more negative outcomes.
(44:40):
Well, thank you all forsharing your wisdom today.
Uh, would each of you like togive one last piece of advice
for our future applicants?
George Vidal (44:50):
I think that my biggest piece of advice is actually
another little psychological tactic.
And this one is to put yourself inthe shoes of someone who you think is
really successful in science, right?
Someone who you look up to a lotand say, well, what would I be
(45:10):
doing in their, in their shoes?
Would I be looking for critical feedback?
Would I be looking foras many mentors as I can?
Would I be reaching outto my program officers?
And that really helped me because,you know, I go through a lot
of imposter syndrome, right?
This idea that I'm not really goodenough, that my science is never going
(45:30):
to be good, these really destructive,self-destructive thoughts, um, that
have no place in our own development.
So I think that biggest piece of adviceis put yourself in the mind of someone
else who you think is successful.
They're probably going through the sameexact kinds of things as you are, but
when you do that, hopefully that willgive you an idea of how to reach out
(45:54):
to people and how to take advantageof the resources that are around you.
Sweta Agraw (45:59):
I would say that my piece of advice is that even though the
process is very intimidating and there'sa lot to do, um, and it's very easy to
put off or decide not to do it, that itis always worth applying and thinking
about, at least, even if you don'tget it, the good that may come of it.
(46:20):
I actually almost did not apply forthe K99 since my postdoc paper wasn't
out yet, I was getting married the dayafter the application was due, I was
debating whether to apply for academicjobs or for the K99, and my advisor
actually talked me into it, like,just try it, like it'll help you out.
(46:42):
And like, you know, the jobmarket will always be there.
We didn't realize that therewas a pandemic on its way that
would kind of tank it, but,but still, it was good advice.
And I'm glad I applied because I didend up getting it and it worked out
a lot better than I thought it would.
And even if I hadn't gotten itagain, I feel like I've learned
so much about NIH and the wholeprocess through every failure.
(47:05):
Um, and it's helped makethe next grant stronger.
So, um, yeah, just don'tbe too intimidated.
You just, at some point haveto kinda jump in and tackle
it and see where it takes you.
Marguerite (47:16):
I love that advice.
Thank you.
Tayler S (47:19):
I completely echo that advice just to like take all the chances;
I almost didn't apply for the loanrepayment program award because an NINDS
does not prioritize PhDs, but I thoughtwhat the heck might as well go for it.
And that has really been likea life-changing award for me.
In terms of another piece of advice,we've touched upon this a bit throughout
(47:40):
our conversation today, but I thinkit's important to emphasize that your
application really be, you know, the storyof you and your scientific career and
emphasize that throughout each componentof your application, tell the reviewers
your scientific story, where you comefrom, where you are now and where you want
to go and what you're doing to, you know,progress your story and your science and
(48:03):
how your mentors are going to really helpyou achieve those goals that you have.
Lauren Ullrich (48:07):
Yeah, that's such a good point.
Especially these training andcareer development awards,
they really are about you.
In so many ways they're about yourstrengths and your weaknesses, they're
about the training that you still needin order to get where you want to go.
And really the most successfulapplications that I see are the ones that,
that have that personality, that havethat story, and they're so compelling
(48:32):
that the reviewers say,"Oh, of course wehave to fund them, of course we want to
support this person, like, I can see themdoing great things and being a leader
in neuroscience." And those are the onesthat are, that are super successful.
George Vidal (48:46):
Hmm.
I think now I have a competingadvice--they're competing for first place.
So I don't know.
Lauren Ull (48:54):
[Laughter] Go ahead.
You can say two.
Ge (48:56):
So I think the biggest thing here was--and it echoes this idea that
this application process is going to makeyou into a stronger scientists, no matter
what--and in that process, there's a lotof self-reflection about what are the gaps
in your training that need to be filled.
And that is what mymechanism is all about.
(49:19):
So, once I had enough self-reflectionto say,"Well, what are my actual gaps?"
The only way to really do that is toreally try to write out one of these
applications so you really understandyour weaknesses and your strengths.
And you can work, you can use thistraining mechanism to propose how you
(49:41):
will fill in those gaps in your owntraining and become stronger in the end.
Marguerite Matth (49:47):
For all of our returning listeners, we promise we
did not feed them these things to say.
These are coming from their own brains,Lauren and I did not have to bribe
them to give similar advice that hasbeen given before on this podcast.
So thank you all for sharing.
Lauren, do you have any partingadvice for our listeners?
Lauren Ul (50:11):
Um, I guess my advice for this episode is a little bit more
practical, in terms of just being verycareful when you're reading the FOA.
We hate to see applications come inthat we can't fund for whatever reason.
And so doing that homework andreally doing the work up front to
(50:33):
make sure that, you know, you haveall the required components,that
you're eligible, that this is theright Institute, all of those things.
And most of that can be found in the FOA.
And if not there, then reachingout to program directors.
Um, and also a thing that'scommonly overlooked is the notices.
So, sometimes there are updates tofunding opportunity announcements.
(50:55):
These could be changes in what'srequired in the FOA, these could be
changes to the eligibility criteria,this could be, um, even a new FOA has
been published and you're applyingto the old one, and they're very
easy to just scroll past and to miss.
And so making a little mental noteto always go in and check the related
(51:17):
notices before you submit thatapplication, that would be my advice.
What about you, Marguerite?
Marguerite Matthew (51:24):
I think it's a great opportunity for you to talk
with your mentor about planning yourapplication and even getting some advice
from other folks about the right typeof funding opportunity to apply for,
but none of that supersedes what isin the funding announcement in terms
of eligibility and other information,but also talking to program staff.
(51:49):
So, it's great to have folks to talk toat your institution, but you also want to
make sure that you are communicating withthe NIH to make sure that you are applying
to the right place, you are applying forthe right type of opportunity, and getting
feedback from us on how to best guide you.
We are not the end-all be-all, wedon't have all the answers, and much
(52:14):
of what we are giving to you aresuggestions and not hard and fast
rules, but we do want to hear from you.
So please reach out to a program officeror three, if necessary, to do that.
But it's really important that youaren't just relying on information
given to you by people who may haveapplied for an award that you're
(52:36):
thinking about because of all thethings Lauren just said: things, change
policies, change, procedures, change,um, and, us at NIH are the best people
to give you the right information.
So, yep.
Lauren Ullrich (52:53):
Okay.
And that's all we have time fortoday on Building Up the Nerve.
So thank you again to our gueststhis week for sharing their expertise
and a big thank you to NINDSprogram director Dr. Bob Riddle, who
composed our theme song and music.
We'll see you next time when we tacklethe specific aims and research strategy.
Marguerite Matthew (53:13):
You can find past episodes of this podcast and
many more grant application resourceson the web at ninds.nih.gov.
You can email us with questionsat NINDSNervePod@nih.gov.
Make sure you subscribe to thepodcast on Apple Podcasts or your
(53:35):
favorite podcast app of choice.
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 podcastfor neuroscience trainees that takes
you through the components of a grantapplication with successful awardees.
We know that applying for NIH fundingcan be daunting, but we're here to help.
It's our job.
(00:23):
Hi, I'm Lauren Ullrich, aprogram director at NINDS.
Marguerite Matthews (00:27):
And I'm Marguerite Matthews, a scientific
program manager at NINDS.
And we're your hosts today.
Lauren U (00:32):
Welcome to season two! Last season, we discussed the stages of
the grant cycle with NINDS staff, andthis season, we're going to delve into
the different components of the grantapplication with successful awardees.
Marguerite Matthe (00:46):
That's right.
And this episode will focus onwhat to do before you apply.
We will touch on choosing the rightfunding announcement and how to find
the right NIH Institute, the differentparts of the application, where to
find resources and how to approachconversations with your research mentor.
Lauren Ullri (01:04):
And of course, our disclaimer from last season still applies.
Everything we talk about mayonly be relevant for NINDS.
So if you're applying to a differentNIH Institute, it's always best to
check with them about their policies.
Our guests today are Dr. Taylor Sheahan,Dr. Sweta Agrawal and Dr. George Vidal.
(01:27):
So let's get startedwith our introductions.
So Taylor, you want to go first?
Tayler Sheahan (01:31):
Sure.
So thank you for having me.
I am a third year post-doc in thePittsburgh Center for Pain Research
at the University of Pittsburgh.
And my research interests are broadlyfocused on understanding how the
nervous system detects sensory inputlike pain and itch, and then how
that information is processed andencoded within the nervous system.
And currently I'm focusing on neuronswithin the spinal cord that process
(01:55):
pain and itch using rodent models.
I first applied for NINDSfunding as a graduate student.
I applied for an F31, which wasnot awarded, but was still a really
important learning experience for me.
As a post-doc I applied forand received a position on an
institutional training grant or a T32.
(02:16):
And I also applied for an F32as a postdoc, which was awarded.
And I've also been extremely fortunateto have received an LRP or loan repayment
program award to help pay down my studentdebt, which has been very amazing.
And I'm currently gearingup to apply for a K99.
My favorite thing to dooutside of the lab is running.
(02:39):
I think it's a really greatway to meet new people and to
explore and learn about the city.
Sweta (02:44):
My name is Sweta Agrawal.
I'm a fourth year post-doc atthe University of Washington
in John Tuthill's lab.
I study the neural circuitsunderlying proprioception.
So I work in the fruitfly as my model system.
And specifically I'm looking at neuralcircuits in the fly's version of the
spinal cord, the ventral nerve cord, andlooking at how those central circuits
(03:10):
integrate proprioceptive information fromdifferent proprioceptors on the fly leg.
A lot of what I like about proprioceptionis that it's a sense that's very
important for motor control.
There are some people that havelost all sense of proprioception
and for them performing even thesimplest tasks is pretty difficult.
And so I just find it fascinating tolook at the sensory-motor transformations
(03:32):
that underlie that kind of sense.
As far as NIH awards.
So I started applying forNIH awards as a post-doc.
I applied for and did not getan F32 and then a K01, and then
finally was successful when Iapplied for the K99 this past year.
Like Taylor mentioned, all thosefailed attempts were very helpful.
(03:55):
And I think definitely helpedme get the K99 in the end.
Part of what kind of complicated thingswas that regarding the F32, I was applying
as part of the cohort when NINDS changeda little bit of how the F32 operated.
So we can talk about that later ifwe want, or if anybody has questions
about that, but yeah, in general, whileit sucked not getting those awards,
(04:18):
it was still helpful to have gonethrough the process and be familiar
with it when I did apply for the K99.
As far as hobbies outside thelab, I'm a pretty avid mushroom
hunter, which goes along with mylove of hiking and the outdoors.
Lauren Ullrich (04:33):
Oh, that's neat.
What's your favorite mushroom?
Sweta Agr (04:35):
It kind of depends on the use case, I guess, but there's this
really cool mushroom that's also likehard to find called the cauliflower
mushroom, where it just looks like abundle of egg noodles in the ground.
And yeah, it's just like,it's very delicious.
You can kind of use it like egg noodles.
It has the same texture, butit's actually made a mushroom.
George Vidal (05:01):
Hi everybody.
My name is George Vidal.
I am an assistant professor atJames Madison University, where I
am running a newly independent lab.
I started my job here in 2016.
And right before that, I was actuallya PhD student in Stanford university
(05:22):
in their neuroscience program.
And that's where I receivedmy first NIH award.
It was actually through an institutionaltraining grant that supported me
for the first couple of years ofmy graduate school experience.
Then later in my graduate career,I applied for an F31 award.
And I actually was awarded that on thefirst try, which I heard was very rare.
(05:46):
And then afterwards, I came tothis position and looked for
a few different opportunities.
One of them was a fantastic one, which isK01 career development award for faculty.
And that's a unique one that I startedan application for back in 2017, was
(06:08):
unsuccessful the first time aroundmade a lot of changes, and then in the
second time around, I was awarded that.
That's a five-year award.
My lab is most interested in understandingjust the development of the cerebral
cortex in general, specifically excitatoryneurons, excitatory pyramidal neurons,
(06:30):
and our angle of that is actuallylooking at autism risk genes, because
many of them are associated withdysfunctions in the cerebral cortex.
So the way we look at it is we look at onerisk gene at a time and try to understand
all of the anatomical, the physiological,and behavioral consequences of that.
(06:53):
Yeah.
So outside of the lab I think one ofmy favorite things to do is art in
general, it could be music, it couldbe painting or drawing or designing,
but I think the one that is the mostuseful right now is culinary arts.
I love cooking at home, and I thinkeveryone on this podcast by being
associated with some form of science, uh,is actually probably a really good cook.
Marguerite Matthews (07:18):
What's your favorite dish to cook?
George Vidal (07:21):
I have no idea.
It's, it's really hard because every,every new recipe is a, is an exploration
of something new, maybe a new cultureor new technique, it never really ends.
So I don't know.
I don't have a favorite.
Marguerite Matthews (07:43):
All right.
So how did you decide which fundingopportunity to apply for and how
did you find out about the award?
So, also thinking about, did you goand find these things on your own?
Did you have someone guiding you?
What was your general process?
Sweta Agr (08:02):
So, like I mentioned, I had applied for an F32 and
K01 before I applied for my K99.
And in some ways how I got tothe K99 is a product of that.
So like I mentioned, when I appliedfor the F32, NINDS had, uh, I was
sort of in this in-between phase wherethey were, they transitioned it to
(08:22):
something that you could apply forin the first year of your postdoc.
Whereas before I think you couldapply for it up until maybe like
year three or something like that.
And so when I submitted myapplication, I was towards the end
of my first year and then got agood score, but it wasn't funded,
but then I couldn't reapply for it.
Uh, so that was then what led me to tryapplying for this K01 that they have
(08:45):
for postdocs that seemed like it wasfilling in that gap between the F32
as NINDS had it now, and then the K99.
But then I was part of one of thefirst cohorts applying for that.
And I found that it was kindof mixed as far as, um, the
feedback that I got from that.
And so my PI and I talked about it alittle bit and we decided that it would
(09:09):
be best if I just waited another year ortwo till I had some more data, um, and
was more of a senior postdoc and couldthen think about applying for just the K99
and not worry about the K01 and figuringout what this new funding mechanism was.
And then as far as the K99, thereare a couple different versions of
the K99 that one could apply for.
(09:31):
I was debating between sort ofthe normal K99, and then the brain
initiative K99, which is, I endedup applying for the latter one.
And part of the reason for that was that,uh, in the summer of 2019, I actually went
to the Gordon conference for Neuroethologywhere I met a program officer from
(09:51):
NINDS Karen David, who actually helpsoversee the BRAIN initiative K99.
And through talking with her, Irealized that the BRAIN initiative
K99 was really a nice fit for me.
It also has a slightly lengthenedeligibility window for post-docs, which
meant that I could then wait a littlebit to apply and still be eligible to
(10:13):
resubmit an application depending onwhat happened the first time around.
Um, and so, yeah, so that's how I endedup settling on my funding mechanism.
Lauren Ullr (10:22):
It's great that you sort of foreshadowed one of our, our
other questions about the benefits oftalking to the program officer, which
I feel like was the entire, uh, takehome message of season one [laughter]
, but, um, we can cover that later.
So...
Tayler (10:37):
I would say my decision about which FOA to apply for was a
lot more straightforward because I wasalready in that cohort of post-docs
who knew that we were eligible eitherone year up to beginning the postdoc
or one year after the start date.
So I was made aware of that from otherpostdocs in the lab that I worked
with as a graduate student, but itwas something that I was discussing
(11:01):
with potential postdoc advisorswhen I was interviewing with them.
So that was a conversation that wehad and kind of started to talk about
when we would submit that application.
And I ended up submitting itthe first application cycle
from when I started my position.
It ended up being a little bit toodifficult to try to juggle, wrapping
up my PhD, you know, submitting thosepublications, um, while, you know, trying
(11:26):
to get another foot out the door andwrite a grant application on a new topic.
So, but yeah, I made a point to applysuch that I would have an opportunity
for a resubmission cycle if I needed it.
Lauren Ullrich (11:37):
Yeah.
That's so important.
We see so many trainees, waitand wait and wait, cause they
never feel like they're ready.
And then, you know, they get a goodbut not fundable score and they don't
have the opportunity to resubmit.
So we always counsel people tosort of work backwards and try
and make sure they build in thatresubmission time, just in case.
Tayle (11:57):
I think another important point that kind of comes from the switch
to a shortened eligibility window ishow much preliminary data is required.
But with the new, shortertimeframe, like there really isn't
emphasis on preliminary data.
So it really is just to your benefitto go all in as early as possible.
George (12:13):
To, uh, to add to that.
Actually I wanted to echo whatwas just being said about building
in time for a resubmission.
The eligibility window for the facultyK01 is only in, I think it's, uh, first
three years of the faculty appointment.
And so it was really important thatonce I identified the opportunity
(12:36):
that I went in with a first submissionas soon as possible, and then I
used the comments from that tobuild a really strong resubmission.
And actually getting to why I chosethe faculty K01, I actually, if you
noticed from the little intro thatI gave, I actually did my PhD and
(13:00):
graduated with my PhD in 2016, but Ialso started my faculty job in 2016.
So that meant that I didn't havethe opportunity to do a postdoc
in between those two things.
And so like, I couldn't build things withthat F32 or K99 or anything like that.
And this opportunity was fantasticbecause the idea was to build a network
(13:25):
of mentors that would take me and kindof launch my independent research career.
And so once I saw that was what theaward was for, and I talked to my
program officer about whether or notsomeone at my institution would be
eligible for applying for somethinglike that, and then I saw the answer
(13:48):
was yes, then I made sure to apply assoon as possible so that I could get a
resubmission in there if I needed it to.
Lauren Ullric (13:55):
So Sweta, did you have something you wanted to add?
Sweta Agra (13:58):
Um, yeah, I was just going to add that one nice thing
about being able to apply earlyenough that you can resubmit is that
you will often learn a lot from thefeedback you get the first time around.
And so for that F32 I'd applied for,um, my PI was a new PI, he had just
started his job and we didn't realizethat because he was so junior that
(14:20):
it would actually work against myapplication if I didn't have a co-advisor.
And that seemed to be the mainthing that was really criticized
about that application.
So if I had been able to resubmit, Ithink with a simple change, I might've
actually gotten it the second time around.
And so it was heartbreaking to beso close and then to not really
(14:41):
be able to do anything about it.
Lauren Ullrich (14:43):
Yeah.
And we mentioned a little bit earlierabout the different eligibility criteria.
So for example, the BRAIN K99 has afive-year eligibility window versus
the parent K99, and that theseeligibilities, can be very strict, like,
Sweta like you ran into with the F32.
And so just sort of wondering, like,how you navigated that process and were
(15:08):
there any other surprises that cameup or things that you, um, you know,
didn't really realize to think aboutbefore you started reading the FOA?
Tayler She (15:18):
Now, as I'm starting to think about applying for a
K99, I had a lot of questions.
When is the end of my PhD, or whenis that--when did my K clock start?
So I had a lot of questions andwent to different people who
had served on K99 panels anddidn't really get a clear answer.
So I ultimately emailed Steve Korn and,you know, got a good answer after I
(15:43):
sent like these are all my dates, when Idefended, when my PhD was accepted, when I
started my postdoc, like which one is it?
And he was just a really great resourceto clarify that confusion for me.
Marguerite Matthew (15:55):
And just for our listeners who may have tuned in
to season one and got a chance tomeet Steve Korn, Steve Korn is the
director of the training and careerdevelopment office here at the NINDS.
George Vidal (16:09):
Yeah.
I just wanted to add that whenI was applying to the K01, the
faculty K01, I wasn't aware that Iactually could talk to two different
program officers about, about it.
Um, one is my scientific program officerand really helped me to understand how
(16:31):
to, uh, how to propose and understandthe relevance of what I was proposing
in my, in my research proposal.
Um, and then the other program officerthat I talked to was the overall kind
of career development program officerthat's currently Michelle Jones-London.
(16:53):
And she has been a wonderful resource forme during the time when I was applying.
And, uh, and now during the timeof the award, um, so understanding
that I have two, two people thatI can talk to about two separate
things has been really helpful.
Lauren Ullrich (17:11):
Yeah.
And that, I think that's a little bit of aunique setup that we have at NINDS where,
um, we have the training program directorsthat we sort of oversee the program and
the career development side of things.
But then we work with the peoplethat understand the science the
best, and that's the program directorthat holds the scientific portfolio.
(17:33):
Um, but it does mean that you havetwo separate people to talk to.
Marguerite Matth (17:37):
And I think we have really great synergy here at
NINDS between the different officesand the different program staff that
handle these things, um, both onthe scientific side, as well as the
training and career development side.
Um, and we work as a team because wewant to give you the best information.
(17:57):
And if there's any sort of discrepancy,we try to work together to make sure
that you are receiving a unified, um,stance or voice on particular issues.
So we hope that you folks continueto want to reach out to us.
And if I'm not the right person to betalking to, I will make sure you get
to the right person, be it someoneelse in my office or someone on the
(18:19):
scientific side, or at least that'ssomething we try to work on, is to make
sure that you are getting the rightinformation with the right expert at NIH.
George Vidal (18:27):
I agree.
To second that idea, you know, what,during my resubmission, especially
I viewed both my scientific programofficer and my, and my career
development program officer as a team.
And oftentimes I would hear from themtogether and talk to them together.
So just getting, getting that kind ofunified response was extremely helpful
(18:53):
during that resubmission process.
Sweta A (18:55):
I was just going to say one other thing, as you're thinking
about eligibility windows, um, is tojust keep in mind, at least for the
BRAIN initiative K99, it was somewhatlaid out as far as when you might expect
the grant to actually be reviewed.
And so it's just helpful to think aboutthe timeline about when you might be
getting that first score feedback,um, before you can reapply and to
(19:20):
just make sure again, that you leaveenough room for those next stages for
when you do need to resubmit, so likeenough time to get the feedback, um,
and then to be able to change yourapplication in response to that feedback.
Laur (19:34):
Yeah, that's a good point.
A lot of times applicants think they'llbe able to apply the very next cycle.
Um, but it's unlikely you'll even getthe summary statement back in time.
But even if you do, you might have aweek or two before it's due, and that's
just not enough time to, to reallyput together a good resubmission.
And so planning on it's going tobe two cycles before you're able to
(20:00):
resubmit and sort of working backwardsfrom there is really important.
Marguerite Matthew (20:04):
So it sounds like each of you did contact a
program officer either at NINDs orsomewhere else before applying, but
how did you know who to contact?
Sweta Agrawal (20:15):
For me?
I was lucky enough that I was able tomeet Karen David at this conference.
And so it was wonderful tohave some face time with her.
Um, and also a friend of mine hadjust received the same FOA, the
BRAIN initiative K99, and she hadbeen working with Karen David and
had good things to say about her.
So that was--like, it was just,it's hard to like have something
(20:38):
like that just fall into your lap,so that was kind of opportunistic.
Um, and then otherwise I did go on theFOA for the BRAIN initiative K99 and
at the bottom they list who the programofficer is, different people to contact
depending on what your question is about.
And so I did then, uh, reach out to,for example, Michelle Jones-London.
Tayler She (21:01):
Similar to us Sweta, I also utilized the NINDS websites
and also the LRP website when Iwas preparing those applications.
And like Marguerite mentioned, like,you know, I reached out to maybe
not the ideal person to answer myquestion initially, but my emails have
always been forwarded to the personwho would know the correct answer.
(21:22):
So I, you know, I try my best tocontact the person who I think should
answer it, but know that it willprobably end up in the right hands
if that wasn't, you know, the perfectperson to answer that question.
Marguerite Matthews (21:34):
Right.
And even if you contact the person listedin the funding announcement or some other
place, it may not have been updated,people move to different institutes
or on to different job opportunities.
So we do try to do a goodjob of making sure you're
connected with the right people.
And please, please be persistent.
(21:56):
If for some reason you do reach outto a program person and they don't
respond to you, try to find someoneelse because it may be a situation
of just that person is no longer withthat particular office and maybe the
contact information wasn't updated,um, or they're out sick unexpectedly,
all kinds of things can happen.
So we do want you to be persistentin trying to contact someone,
(22:19):
um, because this is our job.
Our job is to talk with you andmake sure that you have all the
information you need to apply and havea competitive application submitted.
George (22:30):
Something that was very helpful for me in, uh, in first reaching
out was actually to have, a very shortstatement, not even a specific aims
page or anything, but, um, it wasa very small statement about what I
intended to do, where my scientificexpertise lied, where I am in my career.
Um, because then when I, I use the FOAannouncement online to first contact
(22:55):
the program officer that was, thatwas listed--and I think that that was
Michelle Jones London at the time--whenI reached out to her and I had that,
she was very easily able to connectme with the right program officer for
the scientific part of my application.
Lauren Ullr (23:13):
Yeah, that's such a good point because a lot of these FOAs,
NINDS is the only one signed onto it.
And if you don't fall within ourmission, we legally cannot fund you.
And so making sure that you'reeven with at the right institute
is a, is a great first step.
Sweta Agr (23:34):
I don't know how true this necessarily is, but I was told,
well, one, I was encouraged faculty in mydepartment to contact the program officer.
So I knew that this would be a goodidea going into the whole process.
Um, but I was encouraged to have atleast a rough draft of my specific
aims, ready to send to them.
Again, so they could kind ofmake sure I fell within the
(23:55):
purview of the particular FOA.
And also I was told, never cold callthem, but you always email them and
let them set up a phone call with you.
So that's the protocol that I'vefollowed, um, with each program
officer that I've contacted.
Lauren U (24:10):
Yeah, I would say, um, it's always best to email first and
set up a time just so that, you knowyou have their undivided attention
and they're not, you know, on theirway out the door and they have time
to review your aims and read themand be prepared for the conversation.
So yes, we greatly appreciateemails and not cold calls.
So once you sort of, you had decidedwhich FOA to apply to, how did you
(24:35):
approach putting the grant together?
Did you start in a certain place?
Did you start with certain documentsbefore moving on to others?
And how long did it take youto put that grant together?
Sweta Agra (24:48):
So I, um, first made sure to just go through the FOA
and read some of the language thatwas on there, about what they were
looking for in the BRAIN initiativeK99 and different aspects of science
that they were trying to emphasize.
And again, talking--like Karen David atthat conference also had put together
(25:10):
a little presentation about applyingfor BRAIN initiative grants, not
specifically a K99, it was more broadthan that, but it kind of gave me a sense
of some of the goals and the types ofresearch that they were interested in.
And then I do think that it'simportant to have kind of a
cohesive message to the grant.
(25:31):
And I also talked to a bunch of peopleabout the K99 and the program officers
and it was clear that the purpose ofthis funding mechanism is to provide
some training, like you do want to applyto it and demonstrating how the, what
you propose in the K99 will help trainyou, but it's only supposed to be about
(25:52):
two years as a post-doc, and so you'realso supposed to be on this cusp of
transition, but make the case that likethis little bit of training is going to
help get you over that cusp and to reallymake you a competitive applicant for
the job market, the academic job market.
And so with all that in mind, thatwas kind of thinking about what is it
that I could use, what final bit oftraining, and I'd always wanted to try
(26:16):
and pursue a computational project.
And so I made that the main focusof the research part of my grant, as
well as the training part of my grant.
And so once I had that figured out whatwas going to be kind of the core message
of my grant, it felt a lot easier forall the other pieces to fall into place.
Um, and then of course, there'slots of little documents that go
(26:36):
along with any NIH application.
And so for that, I was very glad tohave had these failed past attempts
that I could cannibalize and use a lotof those other documents to kind of
fill out the rest of the application.
Tayler Sheahan (26:49):
I'll talk about my experience with
preparing an F32 application.
So I started my postdoc knowing thatlike right out of the gates I would need
to write this F application in termsof, you know, the eligibility window.
And I think I probably ended upspending or allotting myself around
two months to work on the application.
(27:11):
And since I was new to the lab, oneof my first steps was just kind of
diving into the literature and gettinga sense of where there's a gap in
knowledge that I might want to address.
But then also I made a point tocollect a number of F32 applications
from labmates and friends and othercolleagues that were both successful
and unsuccessful to get a sense ofwhat a scope of an F32 looks like.
(27:36):
And then around that point, I startedjust bouncing ideas around with my
mentor about a proposal that wouldnot only lead to potential significant
findings to the field, but alsoentail a lot of really great training
opportunities for me during my post-doc.
And in terms of the sections that Ispent the most time on, obviously the
(27:56):
research strategy was the bulk of my time.
So I worked on that, got a good draftgoing so that I would be able to send
that out to people to get their feedback.
And then while I was waiting for feedbackor just needed a break from thinking
about science, I would do those otherdocuments that Sweta was talking about.
And, you know, I, again, learningfrom previous grant application
(28:19):
submissions when I prepared my F31,and remember, I did not have a sense
at all of how long those additionaldocuments take and I really vastly
underestimated how long those additionaldocuments take, but they're still
very critical to your applicationbecause it is a training grant.
So it was nice for my F32 to have, youknow, a template for all those additional
(28:41):
documents from my first F31 application,
George (28:46):
uh, for me in, in doing the K01 faculty application, I think
the biggest thing was reading theFOA really carefully because in there
I realized that the point of themechanism wasn't only for funding the
science, but also funding the person.
(29:08):
And so that person is, you know, unique.
It's a unique person at a uniqueinstitution with unique institutional
commitments and environments, andall of that together forms this,
this thing that can be developed.
Right.
And so once I understood that therewere actually--it wasn't just about the
(29:29):
science, it was also about where am Iin my career and where, what gaps do I
have to fill, get to where I need to go?
And how is that going tohelp the NINDS mission?
All of that helped me reallyframe everything in the right way.
The other thing I wanted to say, andthis is just unsolicited advice, and just
(29:52):
hearing what we've been talking about isto really not be shy and get over your own
inhibitions to contact potential mentors,you know, either at your institution or
at nearby institutions, or also to contactyour program officers and work through
all of these things with everybody.
(30:13):
I learned at a little bit thehard way, because I wasn't--I'm
kind of an introverted person.
And so that when I, applying the firsttime around, I had some mentors and,
um, I had talked to my program officer,but I could have done a lot more.
And that's what I didduring the resubmission.
And I also had a lot ofencouragement from people around
(30:33):
me to build that mentor network.
Before I went into my resubmission.
As for keeping track of thedifferent parts of the application,
everyone's saying that there are alot of parts, it's the same for me.
And if you've done this before,actually they're a little Gantt charts,
they're organizational charts that,that let you list every item that you
(30:56):
need to complete, every little task.
And I just wrote out all of the documents.
When I got to the research strategyportion, which is a very big deal, I broke
that down into the different specificaims, or maybe the introduction and the
specific aims that I was going to do.
And then I laid that out overthe course of several months.
I know that in the first application, itdefinitely took me, from the time that
(31:22):
I was considering applying to the timewhen I actually applied, it was about
six months and in the resubmission, Ithink it was more than that actually.
Part of that was because I was waitingfor a publication to be in press and also
I was talking to a couple of mentors,um, and adding them onto my application.
So yeah, give yourself a lotof time, organize things, and
(31:46):
plan it out way in advance.
Find your mentors, find morementors than you think you need.
And talk to your program officermore than you think you need,
because you probably need it more.
Sweta Agra (31:59):
Yeah, I would say, I think I took only about two months
of like really, from when I was like,yes, I'm definitely going to apply
for this next funding mechanism--soI think I decided that in August and
then was going to apply for the Octoberdeadline--but I did spend pretty much
all of September very focused on thegrant and it was a little bit rushed.
(32:24):
So I would recommendspending more time than that.
I think I had at least already hadbeen thinking it over in my head and
mulling it, so that helped me hit theground running a little bit, but I
would definitely recommend not beingquite so delayed in your process.
And I echo George's advice to findmentors and Tayler, too, mentioned about
finding other example applications.
That was super helpful for me to find onesthat were closer to my area of research
(32:49):
or ones that were further from my area ofresearch and to just have, um, a couple
of different templates to kind of seewhat people have talked about, especially
for the R00 part of the K99 award.
It was hard for me to wrap my headaround to what level I should be
talking about this future research.
Um, especially when I don'tknow where that would be.
Marguerite Ma (33:10):
Now, how, how did you incorporate your mentor into this?
Did you make a plan beforeyou decided to apply?
Did you sort of decide that you were goingto apply and then ask your mentor for help
and how involved were they in the process?
Tayler (33:23):
I've been very fortunate to have super supportive mentors for
both my graduate and postdoc work.
So they have already wanted to playan active role in discussing what the
research will be like and how to reallymaximize my training in their labs.
But I think that's really criticalfor something like an F32, because
it is a training grant and yourmentors should be on board with the
(33:45):
training plan that you're proposing.
And I would say I had pretty frequentconversations with my mentor, Sarah
Ross, during the application process.
And that would be in the form of, youknow, having very iterative conversations
about what would make good, specific aims,but also what training opportunities or
like technical training opportunitiesshould we work into the application to
(34:08):
really develop my scientific toolbox.
And then also training opportunitiesfor my professional development.
And I would say it was a pretty goodprocess and exciting process because
together we exchanged a lot of scienceideas, got excited about the project,
then also just really mapped out whatthe first three years of my postdoc
(34:29):
would look like and set up goals forone-year, two-year checkpoints and that.
So it was a very helpful processwhether or not I had gotten the award.
I think it was a goodopportunity to discuss goals
and expectations with my mentor.
George (34:44):
I completely agree with that idea that as you're applying for
the award is actually an amazing trainingopportunity, in a way, to involve your
mentors more in your own development.
So it'll, it'll always do good.
Um, I remember the first submission, eventhough it didn't go well, or it wasn't
funded, I grew so much during that time.
(35:07):
And because I was doing the faculty K01,it was important to find a mentor who
had really respect, uh, my independenceand always guard it and basically
acted as someone who would support mewhile I was getting that independence.
So for me, it was, it was in, intalking to my colleagues around
(35:28):
here in my department, I foundone who was particularly, you
know, had a great track record ofmentorship of all different levels of
training, including junior faculty.
And it was very clear just in casualconversations that this was somebody
who was going to really respect who--myidentity as a scientist, and just act
(35:50):
there as a, as a support mechanism toreally push me to, to become a better
scientist and a better professional.
So once I found that, that wasjust through casual conversation,
it was, I wasn't actively lookingfor a mentor, but I guess in
retrospect, I kind of was, right?
Many of these mentor menteerelationships happen very organically.
(36:12):
Um, so once I identified my colleagueas my main mentor in the application,
he actually helped me a lot to identifysome others, maybe think about ways to
connect things or ways to accentuatehow our institution really supports
our research mission in the lab,things of that nature that only he
(36:35):
could provide, because he was in thedepartment for a lot longer than me.
Sweta (36:39):
One nice thing about the K99 is it's an excellent catalyst for
having what should be a very importantconversation with your post-doc mentor
about what is it that you can take fromthe lab and work on in your own lab.
And especially because my advisor,John Tuthill, he's a new PI, I'm one
(37:01):
of his most senior postdocs, neitherof us has any practice at this kind of
conversation or this kind of transition.
And so he had already been veryinvolved in all of my previous grant
applications and is an excellent writer.
So I was set on that front, butthen it was interesting to have
these conversations with him about,um, where he kind of sees the lab
(37:21):
going, about where he thinks are somepromising directions of research, and
to kind of run my own ideas past him.
And so that was important and good andso even if it hadn't worked out and
gotten funded, I think at the very leastI appreciated that it worked as a nice
vehicle for us to have that conversation.
(37:41):
And like I mentioned, because he'sa new PI, I also had to find a
co-advisor for the application.
And since I knew I wanted to improve mycomputational skills, and I knew that the
other advisor would have to be someonewho has a track record of transitioning
post-docs to their own faculty positions,a natural choice ended up being Adrian
(38:02):
Fairhall, who's also in the samedepartment, uh, just down the hall.
And so it was nice.
She was immediately on board and I alsogot to have some nice conversations
with her about ways to get some ofthe training that I was hoping for.
And then also about, as I was fillingout the computational aim in my
grant, she was great to talk to aboutthe methods, since I was definitely
(38:24):
quite a bit less familiar with those.
Lauren Ul (38:27):
Great, and so besides your mentors, did you get any feedback
on your application before yousubmitted it and who did you send it to?
Who did you ask to read it?
Was there anyone who you thoughtwas maybe particularly helpful?
Sweta Agr (38:48):
So I ended up sending my application to another senior
postdoc in the lab, especially formy specific aims, I kind of wanted
to get those nailed down first.
And since that would then form thebasis of what I would flesh out for
the research statement, I spent a lotof time thinking about those specific
aims and working with this other seniorpostdoc in my lab, since I definitely
(39:13):
trust a lot of the ideas he has.
Um, and then also went overit with my two mentors.
Once I had a research statement puttogether, I ended up contacting another
friend of mine who now is a facultymember, um, at Indiana University, so I
was able to send it to him to read overas well as a couple other folks in my lab.
(39:37):
I kind of tried to choose one personwho was less familiar with the
specific questions and then a personwho was a little bit more closer
to the research to try and get bothperspectives on what I had going on.
Um, and then also at the University ofWashington, uh, we actually have this nice
(39:58):
peer mentoring group for K99 applications.
And so I was able to send some otherparts of the application to somebody
in that peer mentoring group, um,that it consists of postdocs from
all different departments at UDub.
And so that was a nice way to get feedbackfrom someone who was in the same boat,
working on the same application, buttotally removed from the type of research,
(40:20):
the funding mechanism and everything, justto kind of get another set of eyes on it.
George Vidal (40:25):
Uh, for, for me in preparing the K01, uh,
the first time around I made amistake and that was, I didn't get
enough people to take a look at itand they would have given me very
timely advice had I done that.
So during the, the resubmission, uh, Iinvolved beside my primary mentor, um,
I also involved my co-mentors as well.
(40:48):
Each of them is in a different, aslightly different subfield than me.
So they gave very interesting,great perspectives that were
extremely useful and also helpedme with my confidence, too.
It really helped to getthat positive feedback, um,
constructive feedback from them.
I also had a, an unusual set of eyestaking a look at it, and those were
(41:11):
my undergrad students in the lab.
They had just been trained on some ofthe techniques and the ideas and in
the lab, but they hadn't been trainedas neuroscientists for very long.
So actually having them read it and askingme questions really helped to open my eyes
to understand where in the applicationI was just being way too jargony and
(41:34):
assuming way too much from my readers,who are really from all across the board.
So their input actually reallyhelped me to break down the ideas
so that they're understandableby basically any, any of my peers
Tayler S (41:49):
similar to both George and Sweta, I had several people read
my application, my primary mentor,of course, as well as my co mentor.
Um, and then in terms of additionalpeople in the lab, I had another
post-doc who is an expert in a techniquethat I proposed, but that was new to
me and was a--very much a trainingcomponent of my application to make
(42:11):
sure what I was saying made sense andwas feasible and how I, like, make
sure I was interpreting the data of theexperiments I was proposing correctly.
And then in terms of just the specificaims, I guess, going back to the start,
when I had my specific aims page, Isent it to another faculty in the pain
center who is maybe like known for givingcritical feedback and as painful as it is
(42:35):
to see a specific aims page torn apart,I would always love that to happen on the
inside before it goes out to the world.
So, definitely got his feedback andit was also convenient because he has
served on NIH grant panels before.
So it's nice to have senior faculty whohave experience being members of review
(42:59):
committees because they have a sense ofwhat might make or break an application.
So I sought--tried to send my applicationsto the most critical eyes that I can,
um, with the hope that they will catchthe weak spots before grant reviewers do.
George Vi (43:14):
Something that helped me psychologically was to try
to seek the most critical eyes.
And, um, that helped me because I knewthat the feedback that I would get
would really get those weak spots.
What I thought was was greatpsychologically was to say, Hey, you
know, I actually explicitly said,"I'mlooking for you to get at those weak
(43:38):
spots. Please identify them for me sothat I can make my application stronger."
And just being really transparent withthat intention really helped my attitudes
towards, towards the critique process.
Marguerite (43:53):
That's really great of you to say, I think we mentioned this,
actually, in season one, but of coursethis is program staff and people think
that, you know, sometimes the advice wegive is not always, um, very realistic,
but clearly, you know, you are someone whobelieves that getting critical feedback
really is a help and not a hindrance.
(44:14):
Um, and that it's not a mark againstyou as a person, as a thinker, as a
scientist, but it gives you an opportunityto perhaps sharpen your message or
make it more clear, or address thingsin a different way that may help the
reader instead of making them focuson some of the more negative outcomes.
(44:40):
Well, thank you all forsharing your wisdom today.
Uh, would each of you like togive one last piece of advice
for our future applicants?
George Vidal (44:50):
I think that my biggest piece of advice is actually
another little psychological tactic.
And this one is to put yourself inthe shoes of someone who you think is
really successful in science, right?
Someone who you look up to a lotand say, well, what would I be
(45:10):
doing in their, in their shoes?
Would I be looking for critical feedback?
Would I be looking foras many mentors as I can?
Would I be reaching outto my program officers?
And that really helped me because,you know, I go through a lot
of imposter syndrome, right?
This idea that I'm not really goodenough, that my science is never going
(45:30):
to be good, these really destructive,self-destructive thoughts, um, that
have no place in our own development.
So I think that biggest piece of adviceis put yourself in the mind of someone
else who you think is successful.
They're probably going through the sameexact kinds of things as you are, but
when you do that, hopefully that willgive you an idea of how to reach out
(45:54):
to people and how to take advantageof the resources that are around you.
Sweta Agraw (45:59):
I would say that my piece of advice is that even though the
process is very intimidating and there'sa lot to do, um, and it's very easy to
put off or decide not to do it, that itis always worth applying and thinking
about, at least, even if you don'tget it, the good that may come of it.
(46:20):
I actually almost did not apply forthe K99 since my postdoc paper wasn't
out yet, I was getting married the dayafter the application was due, I was
debating whether to apply for academicjobs or for the K99, and my advisor
actually talked me into it, like,just try it, like it'll help you out.
(46:42):
And like, you know, the jobmarket will always be there.
We didn't realize that therewas a pandemic on its way that
would kind of tank it, but,but still, it was good advice.
And I'm glad I applied because I didend up getting it and it worked out
a lot better than I thought it would.
And even if I hadn't gotten itagain, I feel like I've learned
so much about NIH and the wholeprocess through every failure.
(47:05):
Um, and it's helped makethe next grant stronger.
So, um, yeah, just don'tbe too intimidated.
You just, at some point haveto kinda jump in and tackle
it and see where it takes you.
Marguerite (47:16):
I love that advice.
Thank you.
Tayler S (47:19):
I completely echo that advice just to like take all the chances;
I almost didn't apply for the loanrepayment program award because an NINDS
does not prioritize PhDs, but I thoughtwhat the heck might as well go for it.
And that has really been likea life-changing award for me.
In terms of another piece of advice,we've touched upon this a bit throughout
(47:40):
our conversation today, but I thinkit's important to emphasize that your
application really be, you know, the storyof you and your scientific career and
emphasize that throughout each componentof your application, tell the reviewers
your scientific story, where you comefrom, where you are now and where you want
to go and what you're doing to, you know,progress your story and your science and
(48:03):
how your mentors are going to really helpyou achieve those goals that you have.
Lauren Ullrich (48:07):
Yeah, that's such a good point.
Especially these training andcareer development awards,
they really are about you.
In so many ways they're about yourstrengths and your weaknesses, they're
about the training that you still needin order to get where you want to go.
And really the most successfulapplications that I see are the ones that,
that have that personality, that havethat story, and they're so compelling
(48:32):
that the reviewers say,"Oh, of course wehave to fund them, of course we want to
support this person, like, I can see themdoing great things and being a leader
in neuroscience." And those are the onesthat are, that are super successful.
George Vidal (48:46):
Hmm.
I think now I have a competingadvice--they're competing for first place.
So I don't know.
Lauren Ull (48:54):
[Laughter] Go ahead.
You can say two.
Ge (48:56):
So I think the biggest thing here was--and it echoes this idea that
this application process is going to makeyou into a stronger scientists, no matter
what--and in that process, there's a lotof self-reflection about what are the gaps
in your training that need to be filled.
And that is what mymechanism is all about.
(49:19):
So, once I had enough self-reflectionto say,"Well, what are my actual gaps?"
The only way to really do that is toreally try to write out one of these
applications so you really understandyour weaknesses and your strengths.
And you can work, you can use thistraining mechanism to propose how you
(49:41):
will fill in those gaps in your owntraining and become stronger in the end.
Marguerite Matth (49:47):
For all of our returning listeners, we promise we
did not feed them these things to say.
These are coming from their own brains,Lauren and I did not have to bribe
them to give similar advice that hasbeen given before on this podcast.
So thank you all for sharing.
Lauren, do you have any partingadvice for our listeners?
Lauren Ul (50:11):
Um, I guess my advice for this episode is a little bit more
practical, in terms of just being verycareful when you're reading the FOA.
We hate to see applications come inthat we can't fund for whatever reason.
And so doing that homework andreally doing the work up front to
(50:33):
make sure that, you know, you haveall the required components,that
you're eligible, that this is theright Institute, all of those things.
And most of that can be found in the FOA.
And if not there, then reachingout to program directors.
Um, and also a thing that'scommonly overlooked is the notices.
So, sometimes there are updates tofunding opportunity announcements.
(50:55):
These could be changes in what'srequired in the FOA, these could be
changes to the eligibility criteria,this could be, um, even a new FOA has
been published and you're applyingto the old one, and they're very
easy to just scroll past and to miss.
And so making a little mental noteto always go in and check the related
(51:17):
notices before you submit thatapplication, that would be my advice.
What about you, Marguerite?
Marguerite Matthew (51:24):
I think it's a great opportunity for you to talk
with your mentor about planning yourapplication and even getting some advice
from other folks about the right typeof funding opportunity to apply for,
but none of that supersedes what isin the funding announcement in terms
of eligibility and other information,but also talking to program staff.
(51:49):
So, it's great to have folks to talk toat your institution, but you also want to
make sure that you are communicating withthe NIH to make sure that you are applying
to the right place, you are applying forthe right type of opportunity, and getting
feedback from us on how to best guide you.
We are not the end-all be-all, wedon't have all the answers, and much
(52:14):
of what we are giving to you aresuggestions and not hard and fast
rules, but we do want to hear from you.
So please reach out to a program officeror three, if necessary, to do that.
But it's really important that youaren't just relying on information
given to you by people who may haveapplied for an award that you're
(52:36):
thinking about because of all thethings Lauren just said: things, change
policies, change, procedures, change,um, and, us at NIH are the best people
to give you the right information.
So, yep.
Lauren Ullrich (52:53):
Okay.
And that's all we have time fortoday on Building Up the Nerve.
So thank you again to our gueststhis week for sharing their expertise
and a big thank you to NINDSprogram director Dr. Bob Riddle, who
composed our theme song and music.
We'll see you next time when we tacklethe specific aims and research strategy.
Marguerite Matthew (53:13):
You can find past episodes of this podcast and
many more grant application resourceson the web at ninds.nih.gov.
You can email us with questionsat NINDSNervePod@nih.gov.
Make sure you subscribe to thepodcast on Apple Podcasts or your
(53:35):
favorite podcast app of choice.
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.