0:02

Welcome to the National Institute of Neurological

0:04

Disorders and Stroke's, Building Up the Nerve, a

0:07

podcast for neuroscience trainees

0:09

that takes you through the components of a grant

0:12

application with successful awardees.

0:14

We know that applying for NIH funding can

0:16

be daunting, but we're here to help! It's

0:18

our job.

0:19

Hi, I'm

0:24

Marguerite Matthews , a scientific program manager at NINDS.

0:27

And I'm Lauren Ullrich, a program director at

0:29

NINDS. And we're your hosts today!

0:32

This episode will focus on the

0:34

resubmission process. We'll talk

0:36

about the introduction and how

0:38

to approach revisions of your grant

0:41

application.

0:42

And of course, our disclaimer still applies everything

0:44

we talk about may only be relevant for NINDS. So

0:47

if you're applying for a different NIH Institute,

0:49

it's always best to check with them about their policies

1:00

And our guests today are

1:02

Cory White, Dr. Katrina Robinson

1:06

and Dr. Alice Lam. So

1:08

let's get started with introductions.

1:10

So my name is Cory White, and I'm a PhD

1:12

candidate in the biochemistry

1:14

cellular and molecular biology graduate program

1:16

at Johns Hopkins school of medicine. And

1:19

there are work in the lab of Michael Wolfgang,

1:21

where I study neuro metabolism specifically

1:24

on looking at the basic capacity

1:26

of the brain to use fatty acids. And

1:29

I'm doing that utilizing as

1:31

genetically manipulate a mouse model, that's incapable

1:33

of breaking down fatty acids, which

1:36

we are comparing to normal mice. From

1:38

these studies, we found that the brain is actually

1:41

breaking down more fatty acids than previously

1:43

thought. Studies have only used

1:45

exogenous lipids. That's been giving to mice where

1:48

they've broken it down, but our studies have really shown

1:50

what is basically happening on a normal condition

1:53

and a little bit more about myself,

1:55

I've applied for the FNI

1:57

NRSA through the NINDS, which

2:00

I received on a recent mission. I

2:02

also am an awardee of the FNI

2:05

and disband the diversity, specialized

2:07

pre docs world to the postdoctoral advancement and neuroscience

2:10

award and see

2:12

a hobby, I'm definitely

2:14

a music nerd. I make playlist

2:17

for fun, I DJ for my friends

2:19

for fun thing. I'll do karaoke

2:22

everywhere. So definitely

2:24

music and not having concerts in my life i s hard.

2:26

Right now you

2:28

have a favorite genre of music that you

2:30

like to, I guess, incorporate

2:32

into your DJ sets for your friends? I do

2:35

like a lot more experimental

2:38

types of like rap music.

2:41

A lot of things that are incorporate more,

2:44

I would say like a lot of house , some things that cobra like

2:46

folk, like things that are sort of John Wood mixing

2:50

is a big thing. Yeah.

2:52

Hello. My name is Catrina Robinson. I

2:54

am an assistant professor at the medical university

2:57

of South Carolina. I have

2:59

applied to several NIH awards

3:01

throughout my career. I applied for an F

3:04

32, twice as a postdoctoral

3:06

fellow was not successful with either one

3:08

of those submissions. I was

3:10

awarded a diversity supplement as

3:12

a junior faculty, and also

3:14

I applied for a diversity

3:17

K 01. My first application

3:19

was not successful, not discussed. And

3:22

I was subsequently awarded

3:24

the resubmitted K 01. I

3:27

also have a platform R O 1 as

3:29

a faculty member scored on the initial

3:32

submission, but it was not funded. Resubmitted the

3:35

R O 1, and it was funded. My

3:38

elevator pitch is as follows: fried

3:42

green tomatoes with white cheddar and caramelized

3:44

onion, grapes, country, ham, tomato

3:46

chutney! Or how about

3:48

buttermilk fried chicken with mashed potatoes?

3:50

Collard greens sounds good! These are

3:54

staples of the southern diet. It

3:56

probably doesn't surprise you that the South

3:58

not only has the highest rates of

4:00

disorders such as Obesity and Diabetes,

4:03

but also the highest rates of Stroke and

4:05

Alzheimer's disease deaths. You

4:08

have to wonder whether there is any causality.

4:11

The research in my laboratory is focused

4:13

on understanding the links among diet

4:15

induced , metabolic disorders, stroke, and

4:17

Alzheimer's disease. One link

4:19

of interest involves the hormone insulin,

4:22

which regulates glucose. You may

4:24

not know that what

4:26

role insulin plays in the brain. It

4:28

plays a role in blood flow inflammation

4:30

and learning and memory. We are

4:32

interested in developing therapies that target

4:35

brain insulin to improve stroke, recovery,

4:37

and delay or prevent Alzheimer's disease.

4:41

My hobbies and passions outside of work

4:43

involves traveling and quilting

4:45

and spending time with my family.

4:48

Do you have a favorite quilt

4:51

pattern or a favorite types of fabrics

4:53

that you like to work with?

4:55

Uh , no . I am still learning.

4:57

So I'm self taught , so it was very basic

4:59

for me right now. So to the typical square.

5:06

Did you start cooking before the pandemic?

5:08

No, I started during the pandemic and

5:10

I love it!

5:14

Yeah. I , I started , uh , actually

5:16

a brain quilt during

5:18

the pandemic, but I'm not finished it yet.

5:20

I got about halfway. I need to finish up [laughs].

5:26

And what about you, Alice?

5:27

So I'm an assistant professor of

5:30

neurology at the Massachusetts general

5:32

hospital and Harvard Medical School. My

5:34

research focuses on the intersection between

5:37

epilepsy and the neuro degenerative diseases,

5:39

particularly Alzheimer's disease. And

5:42

one of the major hypothesis we're

5:44

exploring is that abnormal

5:46

brain electrical activity might

5:48

contribute to cognitive decline

5:50

and even accelerate disease progression

5:52

in Alzheimer's disease. And I think this

5:54

is really interesting because if that's true, it

5:57

could potentially be a novel therapeutic

5:59

approach to Alzheimer's disease. So

6:02

my history with NIH grants goes

6:05

back a ways ,when I was in graduate

6:07

school, I had a F 31

6:09

grant. And then as

6:11

a neurology resident, I had an

6:13

R 25 research education

6:15

grant. I currently have

6:17

a K 23 career development

6:20

grant through a n NINDS and

6:22

then last year I applied for

6:24

and got an R 21 g rant through

6:26

the N IH.

6:29

So you've been around the block with the NIH.

6:31

Congratulations! That's fantastic!

6:38

Uh, still, it just feels like the beginning. Obviously there's,

6:40

there's, there's always next steps and other

6:42

grants to go for, so.

6:44

Oh yeah! We hope you can just [laughing]. keep getting more and more grants!

6:51

So one of my hobbies outside of work

6:53

is also music. So I've been

6:56

learning to play the drum set over the last

6:58

couple of years. I've played

7:00

in a little jazz quartet and

7:02

yeah, I take drum lessons. So it's something

7:04

that I enjoy and it's not

7:07

related to work at all. Nice!

7:09

Do your neighbors hate you Most likely! Yes!

7:11

I am actually a little

7:13

too afraid to ask them.

7:17

Well, if they haven't left a dirty note on your

7:19

door, then you're probably in good shape!

7:21

They probably like your , your musical

7:23

abilities!

7:24

Very nice! I'm worried that their too

7:26

afraid to say anything, but I try

7:28

to practice within fairly

7:31

normal hours.

7:37

This episode is about

7:39

the re submission and

7:41

if you're resubmitting, it means that your

7:44

grant wasn't funded on the first try.

7:46

And so just to start us off,

7:48

I'd like to talk about how do you deal

7:50

with that initial disappointment of finding

7:52

out that your grant wasn't funded?

7:56

So, as I mentioned earlier, my first admission

7:58

to my, F 31 was not successful. And

8:01

I definitely had a moment and first , uh

8:04

, as application that I applied for.

8:07

But I think too , I tried to realistically

8:09

figure out if my application was

8:11

fund able way beforehand, I

8:14

would receive final notice, which

8:16

definitely prepared me when the moment

8:18

actually came. So that

8:20

was a major factor just because I'd already

8:23

been anticipating to resubmit.

8:25

I often think that actually one of the few perks

8:27

of like the turnaround time that it takes from

8:29

submitting the grant, actually hearing

8:32

back about the grant is one of the few perks

8:34

in that you're a little bit removed,

8:36

at least emotionally from that initial submission

8:39

and all the frustration and hard work

8:41

and emotion that , that

8:44

went into that, to that submission. But

8:46

that said, my K

8:48

23, my first application

8:51

was, was not funded.

8:54

Um, in fact, it wasn't even discussed. So

8:56

it didn't even get discussed that the study section,

8:58

which was a real disappointment. So

9:01

I think from that, I would say the

9:04

first thing is just put it aside for

9:06

a little time. You got the result, you know, kind

9:08

of what the outcome is, put it aside. Don't

9:10

look at it for a week, maybe a

9:12

few weeks, if you have the time, at

9:14

least until you can approach the reviews with a

9:16

little more objectivity and a little

9:18

more openly, then your

9:20

initial reaction will be the

9:23

second thing I'll say is be

9:25

kind to yourself. I

9:27

think it's important to remind yourself that

9:29

there's actually a lot more to life than

9:31

NIH grants, no offense to

9:33

the NIH, but like your self-worth

9:35

shouldn't be based on whether or not you get

9:38

an NIH grant. And so it's

9:40

important just to have a little bigger perspective about

9:42

what this means for you and your career

9:44

and science in general, and

9:47

then third, remind yourself that

9:50

most NIH grants aren't funded on the first

9:52

round. So you're actually in pretty good company.

9:55

Um, I think this is one of those times where, you know, people just don't like

9:57

to advertise what they perceive

9:59

as their failures. You know, I

10:01

didn't get my first K 23. It's not like I

10:03

went around emailing everybody. I know saying,

10:05

Hey, guess what? I didn't get my first K 23

10:08

application. Right? So it's much more

10:10

often you'll hear about all the amazing grants

10:12

that people got rather than the ones that

10:14

they didn't get. And a guarantee

10:16

that if you actually have like a frank conversation

10:18

with your peers, or even like people who are a few

10:20

years ahead of you, they will all say

10:22

that they've been in your shoes before. And

10:24

maybe they'll even tell you, like, actually I resubmitted

10:27

like two or three times and still

10:29

didn't get it. So, you know, these are the

10:31

kinds of conversations that we don't often have,

10:34

but I guarantee you, everyone has been in this

10:36

spot before. And

10:38

then last, they'll say, keep in mind that their ears

10:40

aren't out to get you [laughter].Sometimes it feels like that, especially reviewer number three. But you know, their doing this on their own time, usually on nights or weekends. And their honestly, their comments are to try to help you improve your science or your training plan or your career plan. Right? So even though it can be really hard to read their criticisms. I think that again, once you've put it aside for a few weeks and you can come back to it, really try to find some value in the points that they bring up and see if, you know, you can actually use that to make your next application much better.

11:16

So for me, the way that

11:18

I deal with it, and I also teach

11:21

my students to do the same thing, is you

11:23

read the critiques, you take

11:25

a couple of days and then come back

11:27

and read the critiques again, because

11:29

I believe the initial impression, usually it's

11:32

not a great reaction, It's usually

11:35

you feel a little slighted, things

11:37

seem a lot worse than what they are, but

11:39

if you actually take a couple of days is not

11:41

as bad as it seems. And it gives you

11:44

the opportunity to regroup and think about

11:46

how you can push for and do things better.

11:49

If I could add some more, that

11:53

failure of grants is normal. And

11:56

we see a lot of people's successes, especially with

11:58

social media and science, Twitter, everywhere

12:01

we see everyone's wins and

12:04

these things are happening all the time. People

12:06

are not getting funded all the time and to

12:08

really extend yourself, grace.

12:10

That's one thing that I've been really

12:12

happy to see on Twitter is the trend of

12:15

sharing failures. Like my

12:17

grant didn't even get discussed. And so I'm

12:19

going to pour this glass of wine and

12:22

take a couple of days to reflect, be

12:24

upset, whatever, and then get back

12:26

on to, you know, improving this

12:28

grant application. And sometimes

12:30

I see it tagged with, you know , normalized

12:33

rejection or whatever, but I think it's

12:35

so important for folks to share

12:37

those things because it is you're in the camp

12:39

of most, you know, a lot of people, the majority

12:42

of folks have had their grants rejected

12:44

from any number of funding agencies

12:47

or organizations . So it's certainly

12:49

not something to be ashamed of many of the best

12:51

scientists I'm sure have received

12:54

multiple failures and that as I

12:56

love the way you put it, as it's not a value judgment on

12:58

you or your ability to do good science.

13:00

Amen.

13:00

Along those

13:03

lines, how did you decide to resubmit?

13:05

And did you actually resubmit your

13:07

grant or did you submit a new grant

13:09

for the same application?

13:12

Because in season one, we do talk about the difference between

13:14

a true re submission of the grant that you

13:16

applied for and had reviewed

13:19

versus submitting a new application, which

13:21

may be very similar to the grant that you submitted,

13:23

but you're submitting it sort of a new,

13:25

hoping to get a different review and

13:27

you're not responding to reviewer

13:29

question?

13:32

Uh , yeah. So for my F31,

13:35

submission , uh , I decided to resubmit based

13:37

on where the payline was

13:40

for a couple of years prior, which

13:42

sort of said at the end of the twenties,

13:44

which my, my percentile

13:46

for that one was somewhere in the thirties . I

13:49

figured I would likely have to resubmit,

13:52

but sort of where my score was.

13:54

I thought that it could be improved enough to

13:57

then meet the payline. Definitely going

14:00

into things early. I talked

14:02

to my program officer to

14:05

figure out what things I really need to improve on.

14:07

Once I decided I was going to resubmit. So

14:11

figuring out what things about my application

14:13

needed to be stronger, like what

14:15

sections I really needed to focus on

14:18

a lot more for that resubmission.

14:21

Yeah. I'll say that, I

14:24

guess it wasn't really a question of how did I decide to resubmit?

14:26

I knew I was going to resubmit. I

14:29

think it's important to read the reviews and get

14:31

a sense of where the reviewers

14:33

excited about your proposal, you

14:35

know, were there strengths that they noticed? And

14:39

what were kind of the kernels of your submission

14:42

that they really like?And is

14:44

that sufficient to say, okay, you know, there's enough

14:46

good stuff here. I should save that. And

14:49

really just focus on improving some, the

14:51

criticisms that they made. In

14:53

some cases, it may be that they're

14:55

just a lot of holes in your initial

14:57

proposal and maybe it may not

14:59

be salvageable, but I definitely

15:02

agree with Corey talking to your

15:04

program, officer, I think can give

15:06

you a pretty good sense of what the discussion

15:09

was if it was discussed or

15:11

even if it wasn't discussed, they can look at the reviews

15:13

and sort of say, yeah, you know, I think this is

15:15

definitely worth resubmitting, or you

15:18

may want to kind of pivot and try different

15:20

approach.

15:23

So I didn't really think I had

15:25

the option not to resubmit. I

15:27

knew that research was what I wanted to

15:29

continue to do. I want it to remain in academia.

15:32

So ultimately that meant I needed to obtain

15:34

funding. So quitting was not an option

15:37

and I've always been motivated

15:40

by trying to work towards something.

15:42

So it really honed in

15:44

on that for me. So it was both

15:47

motivation to just try to do this better.

15:50

So I ultimately

15:52

resubmit it, and when I say

15:54

that I resubmit it, it was

15:57

really seemed like a completely new application.

16:00

Um , I had to take a lot of the critiques and

16:02

really, I completely changed the focus

16:05

of my resubmission. So my initial submission

16:07

was focused really heavily on Alzheimer's

16:10

disease. But with the resubmission

16:12

I pulled back and

16:14

was in, was obesity induced,

16:16

cognitive impairment,

16:19

Katrina, was that difficult for you to

16:21

address the critiques with

16:24

changing the focus so much? Or did you

16:26

actually find it easier to

16:28

address the reviewers because you

16:30

were taking a much fresher approach

16:32

to?

16:32

So both

16:35

it was difficult in the sense that I had

16:37

to really let go of my previous idea

16:39

and it was the baby that, you know, I

16:42

built from the ground up and that

16:44

I was really passionate about. And then

16:47

having to really kind of let

16:49

go a little bit of my Alzheimer's

16:50

angle, it was

16:52

a little difficult, but I had to

16:55

remind myself that it's all baby

16:57

steps. So let's write

16:59

a simple application that gets

17:01

me the skills that I need to push

17:03

forward. And I have plenty of time in

17:05

my career to pursue Alzheimer's

17:07

disease research.

17:09

Yeah. I think that's a great perspective of,

17:12

you know, it doesn't mean that you won't

17:14

ever get funding for this idea, but

17:17

it might just not be a good fit for

17:19

this particular award. Yeah.

17:23

So in that vein, was

17:25

there a particular

17:27

critique that you thought

17:29

was maybe very

17:32

insightful or

17:34

very worthwhile that you got

17:36

in your summary statement? And then how

17:39

did you address that critique?

17:42

So most of

17:44

the critiques that I received,

17:46

I think I received one critique about

17:48

my progress as a

17:52

post-doctoral fellow, maybe about my publications, I

17:54

had several in progress , um,

17:57

had published maybe a couple of papers thus far,

18:00

but it was a minor critique. Um,

18:02

and the way that that was addressed was

18:04

I had more publications

18:06

by the time the resubmission went in.

18:09

Other critiques that stood out was

18:12

about my environment. So at the time

18:14

when I applied to the K 01, which I think it probably has changed a little bit now, but I was a junior faculty member, but I was still very much with my postdoctoral mentor at the time. And really trying to pave the path towards my independence and to show that I was not no longer in that post-doctoral phase, but I was really working towards independence and how it is established myself independent from my mentor. Um, having to deal with that critique was a bit hard because I felt like as an applicant, I was kind of in a rock and a hard place. Like I really needed the environment, but I also really need the grant for independence. So I kind of felt like I was being tugged into worlds. Um, but I realized that the end that, you know, it was all for my benefit and I'm grateful to the NINDS for that.

19:05

And so how did you ultimately end up

19:08

addressing that in your application?

19:10

How did you establish enough independence

19:13

and convince the reviewers you were on the right

19:15

track?

19:16

So I ultimately go to my department

19:18

chair and really, you know, show

19:21

him the critiques and the reviews

19:23

and he obliged

19:25

and he gave me what I needed, his commitment

19:27

for space and yeah

19:30

, very supportive of trying to make sure

19:32

that I could achieve independence

19:35

in my current environment. So it

19:37

really gave me a voice, I would say,

19:39

to be willing, to stick up for myself,

19:41

because usually when you're a postdoctoral fellow, you

19:43

just go to your mentor and your mentor ask

19:46

. Um, so it really gave

19:48

me that push that I needed to learn to

19:50

speak up for myself.

19:53

Uh , so far my application, the

19:56

major critique was really

19:58

the structuring of the

20:01

sponsor statement and the training plan. Just that

20:04

I think that the sponsor statement read a little bit

20:06

too much like a recommendation letter, not like a , a

20:08

very solid like plan, which

20:11

didn't coincide with like the plan that I wrote, which

20:13

it was a new experience, both for my

20:15

advisor and me. Like I was the first

20:17

student out of the lab, it's actually right at

20:20

31 . So that was

20:23

something that like hit us hard then and

20:25

figuring out like if we needed a co-sponsor as

20:28

well was another major thing. That

20:30

was something that definitely

20:32

wasn't stifle . Uh , just because it's not something that

20:35

we anticipate is just going into the process,

20:37

although it is something that was definitely

20:40

needed for the application.

20:42

So one of the tricky things about if your grant

20:45

isn't actually discussed a t section

20:47

like mine, is that some

20:50

of the reviews can seem kind of disparate

20:53

from one another because there's not really a chance

20:55

for the reviewers to kind of come to a

20:57

consensus and discuss what are actually

20:59

the major problems o f the grant. So in this case,

21:01

it's kind of important to kind

21:03

of see what the common themes are, but,

21:05

you know, it's funny c ause I had like one reviewer say what

21:08

a wonderful candidate, and then another reviewer say

21:11

doesn't really have a research track record for

21:13

productivity. So, you know, it can be very different.

21:16

One of t he critiques I remember getting is

21:18

part of my research plan. So

21:20

there was a , the second aim I had proposed

21:23

was it was an imaging a im and this

21:25

was kind of one of the areas I was trying

21:27

to learn some new techniques, and one

21:30

of the reviewers basically said, or multiple t he reviewers

21:33

said, and the a ims not really clear or

21:35

focused, and it's

21:37

not really clear what the analysis plan is.

21:40

And I have to say that was totally

21:42

on the spot. You know, like sometimes you submit a grant

21:44

and you're like, yeah , you know , that's probably

21:47

all I need to say, or you kind of make this

21:49

assumption that I can gloss

21:51

over these details, but reviewers

21:53

are very smart ,turns out. And

21:56

, um , you know, if you perceive a weakness in your

21:58

grant, they will probably also perceive

22:00

it. And in this case, you know, they were absolutely

22:03

right. I hadn't thought through the science of

22:05

that aim , like as well as I should have, and

22:07

so that's an area that I was able to improve

22:09

upon for my resubmission. And it

22:11

was something that helped the science because it forced

22:14

me to think through it and be very concrete about

22:16

what I was going to do.

22:18

And for our listeners who may be tuning

22:21

in for the first time, this season,

22:23

the thing about not having your grant discussed

22:26

or your application discussed during the

22:28

review panel is it's still going to

22:30

get a review. You're still going to have three

22:33

to four people looking

22:35

at your application and providing

22:39

feedback on each of the scored

22:41

criteria, but it won't

22:43

be discussed in the full panel. So you're not

22:45

going to get any extra insight about

22:47

what other people thought about it. And

22:50

sometimes having sort

22:52

of the discrepancy that Alice was just telling

22:54

us about in terms of one reviewer

22:56

thinking one thing about her as a candidate

22:59

versus someone else, someone in the room

23:01

might've said, well, you know, looking at this, I think,

23:03

you know, and may be able to explain it more and give

23:06

folks an opportunity to perhaps

23:08

change their mind about what's actually written

23:11

in the grant. So there's a benefit to having

23:13

your, your grant reviewed

23:15

in the review panel, even if you don't get

23:17

a fundable score. So that's just

23:20

something to think about. And we do talk in depth

23:22

about that in one of the episodes

23:24

in season one

23:26

And a little more too about, you know, other critiques

23:28

that I got that are probably common critiques

23:31

that people get. So my training

23:33

plan, basically there

23:35

were reviewers that said that it lacked focus.

23:38

Maybe it was a little too ambitious and it was unclear

23:41

how it gained the skills that

23:43

I said I was, I was trying to gain. And

23:45

so again, you know, you take that criticism

23:47

and you say, okay, well, if they thought it was too ambitious,

23:49

let's make it more focused and less ambitious.

23:52

So instead of proposing that, I learned like three

23:54

different imaging techniques, I narrowed

23:56

that down to one and was very

23:58

specific about how I was going to learn

24:01

that skill.

24:03

And what we like to say about that kind of thing is

24:06

it doesn't mean you can't learn all three. You

24:08

know , if you find that you do have the time,

24:12

you don't have to put every single thing you're going to do

24:14

in the grant, just the stuff that makes your case stronger,

24:18

but you have to make the case for

24:20

doing it or not doing it, or having

24:22

a consultant or a collaborator who's going

24:24

to add to that piece of it. And so

24:26

you have to be willing to either

24:29

think far enough ahead to see where you

24:31

will fill in those gaps or accept perhaps

24:33

someone reviewing your application to

24:35

say, okay, I do see where there's value

24:38

and maybe adding another person or adding the skill

24:40

or taking it out completely because I'm

24:42

not going to have enough time and the proposed

24:45

timeline to be able to get all of this

24:47

done the way I think that I might

24:49

be able to. And sort of along those

24:51

lines, Alice or Corey

24:53

or Katrina, were there critiques

24:55

that you disagreed with and felt like

24:58

you had to defend yourself or defend the

25:00

science? Can you talk about sort of

25:02

how you approach that?

25:06

That's a good question! There

25:08

have been times where I disagree,

25:12

but I have to always question myself,

25:14

am I disagreeing? Just because I'm very

25:16

passionate about something or am I disagreeing

25:18

because it's actually founded upon

25:21

some type of factual evidence?

25:24

So this was with my R O

25:26

1 submission. And

25:29

ultimately I was interested in trying to

25:31

assess the levels of insulin

25:34

that were in the brain. And so

25:36

I had tried as part of my K

25:38

award to isolate

25:41

brand interstitial fluid and measure insulin levels

25:43

ultimately was not possible.

25:46

So for my R

25:48

O 1, I decided to use tissue

25:50

and measure tissue levels of insulin.

25:53

I had a reviewer who felt

25:55

that I wasn't doing enough

25:58

to, I guess, think outside of the

26:00

box and come up with other techniques.

26:02

But there was actually one recently

26:05

published paper that said that

26:07

the tissue levels were a more

26:09

accurate depiction of insulin levels

26:12

in the brain. So I actually ended up

26:14

having to use the literature to,

26:17

I guess, counteract what the reviewer

26:19

said. And interestingly enough, I actually

26:21

had another reviewer who was stating

26:23

the same thing that I stated. So it made it

26:25

a little easier to kind of go

26:28

against the other reviewer by using another reviewers

26:30

comment as well.

26:33

So I think that sometimes it may actually

26:35

be because where you thought

26:37

you explained something, clearly you

26:39

didn't explain it that clearly, or

26:41

you made assumptions about what reviewers

26:43

would know that they didn't know. And

26:46

, um , that was the case for my research plan

26:48

for another aim where some of

26:50

the comments were pretty clear. Like they didn't

26:52

quite understand the points that I had wanted

26:54

to get across the inclination

26:57

is to say, God, these reviewers,

26:59

they didn't get it all, but actually that's

27:01

on you to make sure that the reviewers get it.

27:03

So if they didn't get it, then that means you have

27:05

to go back and explain it in a way or make sure

27:07

you're not excluding any details that are really

27:10

important for them to understand so that they understand

27:12

why your sciences as great as you think

27:14

it is. So I think that's when, you know, when

27:16

there's a big mismatch like that often,

27:19

it's, it may be as simple as

27:21

just, you need to explain it a little more

27:23

in a little more basic terms and just that appreciate

27:26

that. Not all the reviewers are in exactly

27:28

your field of study.

27:32

That was the same for me. There was just a couple of things.

27:34

I thought that they were clear and they were probably clear

27:36

to my advisor, not just because we're

27:38

in that field, but they just needed

27:40

to be clarified better . And I really

27:42

do that. Like, I force on my friends to

27:45

read my research that

27:47

just weren't in my actual field to

27:50

see if they got it, hen there would be a better

27:52

chance in a more general review or wicked.

27:54

I mean, that's a great strategy. And I do the same thing

27:56

to, try to have as many

27:58

people as you can read it. And especially

28:00

people not in your field, because if, as

28:03

Corey says, if someone outside your field can get it, or

28:05

if a lot of people outside your field, get it, then

28:07

you know, you've explained it well.

28:10

Wow , Lauren, did you bribe our guests with get

28:13

them to say all these things now that we previously talked about?

28:14

No, It

28:18

just means that we give very good advice, Marguerite. Very e

28:21

xcellent! Congratulations!!

28:21

[laughter] No, but that's really

28:24

great to hear that this advice is

28:26

not just coming from people who think that's

28:28

how it should work out, but, u m, you're

28:30

actually on the other end of that and saying,

28:32

yeah, it does actually help to have other

28:34

people look at your work, critique

28:37

it, and maybe even hate it because then

28:39

you sort of have a better calibrator for

28:42

how to either clear

28:44

up your language or really think

28:46

about the way in which you structure, what you

28:48

think is going to happen, because everybody may

28:51

not agree on how you get to, y

28:53

ou k now, how you interpret your results, but it's nice to have

28:55

some other c aveats to think

28:57

about when putting together, especially the

29:00

research aspect of this. The other

29:02

advice I would have is to really be

29:04

cautious of your tone. So write your

29:07

don't ever write your intro or

29:09

a response to

29:11

a comment within the first couple of

29:14

days of seeing it, but make sure your

29:16

tone doesn't come across as being

29:18

agitated with the reviewers.

29:19

Yeah. The other

29:21

advice I've heard is write that agitated one,

29:24

and then delete it. And

29:30

so one of the things that we have talked about

29:33

this season, I

29:35

guess in season one as well, is

29:37

what a bear , these applications

29:40

are like, how big they are, how many different

29:42

pieces they are, It's a lot to keep track

29:44

of and even more so when

29:47

you know, you're trying to revise this

29:49

grant and change

29:51

it sometimes pretty drastically.

29:54

So, you have any sort of process

29:56

or tips and tricks for applicants approaching

29:59

the revision process for the first

30:01

time that might help

30:03

them manage their revision?

30:06

I think I learned more from the

30:09

resubmission process, which I applied later

30:11

on to my F 99 application,

30:14

just to really ask

30:16

questions early, devise, a plan early

30:19

and ask people that

30:21

have been successful, questions and figure out

30:23

what they really did

30:25

figure out like you can replicate that.

30:28

And it makes sense for you. So I

30:30

would advise people that are resubmitting

30:32

t hough, to really figure out where you

30:35

s tand, like talk to your program, officer early,

30:37

try to figure out if you want to resubmit

30:40

the actual application, or if you want to start from

30:42

like a new application, u

30:44

h, just because like knowing

30:46

where you sit w ill make that an easier process.

30:50

So , um, I think I worked

30:52

by categorizing things.

30:55

So is there something

30:57

that I can change? And is there

30:59

something that I can address in time

31:01

for resubmission first? Are

31:04

there additional experiments that need

31:06

to be done? So I try to

31:08

go through each and every weakness

31:11

that is mentioned, and are there

31:13

weaknesses that I can group that perhaps,

31:15

you know, two reviewers, their

31:18

basically saying the same thing, even though

31:20

it may be a little bit different , um, but

31:22

can I somehow group responses

31:24

together in that way? Um, so

31:27

it , it really is like a tearing apart

31:29

of the critiques before I formed

31:31

my game plan with how to address them.

31:34

And I think at some point you have to, there

31:37

are things that you can change, but ultimately

31:39

they may be things that really you can't change

31:41

and you have to be okay with it .

31:44

Yeah. I think one of the surprising things to me is that it

31:47

sounds like resubmission might be less work [laughter]

31:50

than the initial application, but it

31:52

actually turns out to be probably just as much work

31:55

from the standpoint I'd like to , it's basically still a complete

31:57

grant application, plus that extra

31:59

introduction to the resubmission sheet

32:01

that probably talk about later. So you still

32:03

have to have that same amount of organization. It

32:05

may be a little easier from the standpoint of some of

32:07

the sections are probably already written in terms

32:09

of describing your institution and a lot

32:12

of those things. But I think in terms

32:14

of, you know , what's different from the resubmission compared

32:16

to the initial application is again,

32:18

you should really focus on the reviewers

32:21

critiques and how you plan to

32:23

address them. And based on that, what

32:25

are the major sections that you need to

32:27

update or revise or change

32:30

from that initial application? And

32:32

so I'd say, let that kind of be the guide

32:34

in terms of organizing things.

32:36

And, you know , I agree with Corey that starting

32:39

early and planning ahead is always

32:41

well-advised, but trying to organize

32:43

it from the standpoint of, okay, what are the major

32:45

things I really need to address in this resubmission

32:48

and focus on those things as what you need

32:50

to change.

32:52

So in terms of timeline,

32:55

how long did it take

32:57

you to do your resubmission? How many

32:59

cycles, which is usually, you know , what we talk

33:02

about is there's usually three receipt

33:04

dates a year. So how

33:06

long was it between when

33:08

you submitted your first application

33:10

and when you put in your revision?

33:15

So for my first admission

33:17

of my F 31, I submitted

33:20

that and August

33:23

for August cycle. And actually

33:25

I waited a cycle before

33:27

I resubmitted. So I skipped the

33:29

December cycle and I submitted my

33:31

resubmission in April of the following

33:34

year. So I went into cycle

33:36

in between and asked me that

33:38

a personal decision, just because I knew I wanted

33:40

to get a co-sponsor for my resubmission.

33:44

Um, there were also a couple of things in lab

33:46

that were picking up. Like I was

33:48

really validating a mouse model and I wanted that to

33:50

be a part of the resubmission as well,

33:52

just to show the progress and show that I had, like all

33:55

of the tools I really needed for the actual

33:57

project before the resubmission was

33:59

submitted. So I think those

34:01

were key, key decisions for my

34:04

timeline. I'm not just for

34:06

feasibility of writing, but for what

34:08

I thought, like how things should go in

34:15

I'm pausing because I , uh, I

34:17

don't exactly remember exactly how long it

34:20

was between. So

34:22

the best I can do these together is I think I submitted

34:24

it's a June for initial applications,

34:26

is that , uh, some of the deadlines . So, so I

34:28

submitted my initial one in June and

34:32

I think it was not until the

34:34

following July that I actually put

34:36

in by resubmission. So actually let,

34:38

I think two cycles go

34:41

by and I

34:44

think there was some revamping I felt I needed to

34:46

do. And I was trying

34:48

to think through basically how to

34:50

approach, how to approach the resubmission

34:52

in a way that I thought would be satisfying to

34:55

the reviewers. And that would actually

34:57

address their main criticisms.

35:00

Part of that for me involved actually getting

35:02

a different co-mentor on board. So

35:04

that took a little time as well. And

35:07

part of it was also similar

35:10

to Corey trying to get some things into

35:12

place that I thought would strengthen

35:14

my resubmission. For example, getting

35:17

a paper to out, talking with my

35:19

department chair and with my division

35:21

chief about how to get more

35:24

resources and more convincing institutional

35:26

commitment. So these are things that I thought

35:29

would really benefit the resubmission and

35:31

from that standpoint they were worth waiting for.

35:34

Um, so I think you kind of have to ask yourself how

35:36

major or minor were the criticisms

35:38

of the reviewers. And if it's something really that

35:40

are really easy to address, I think

35:43

you don't really have much to benefit from waiting

35:45

a long time to resubmit fact, it might hurt

35:47

you if you're not that productive in

35:49

that time, but if you can afford

35:51

to wait, and if you know that there

35:54

are going to be a few things that will really substantially

35:56

affect your resubmission over the next few

35:59

months or whatever, then it might actually be

36:01

worthwhile to wait. Two cycles,

36:03

I think is a longer period of time for

36:05

people to wait. But in my case, it was well

36:07

worth it.

36:09

I think. Yeah, I think you'd be surprised. We see

36:11

that most people wait at

36:13

least one cycle just because the timing doesn't

36:15

work out, but especially

36:17

for the K awards, cause there's a little bit of a longer

36:19

time, two or even three cycles.

36:22

It's not completely unusual.

36:25

No. See again, if you talk to other people

36:27

that you might [laughter]you might know that.

36:31

Was there anything surprising Resubmission

36:34

or revision process either in putting

36:37

together your application

36:39

to submit in or even getting in

36:41

the reviews back good or bad?

36:44

Were there things that you just hadn't expected?

36:47

I mean, just cause this was like the F 31

36:50

was my first NIH grant

36:52

I wrote ever it was a kick in the chest

36:54

just to see the reviews, [laughter] which

36:58

I mean, they're there to help you, but if

37:00

it's your first time doing it, that

37:02

that's definitely a surprise. That

37:05

was the major thing for me. I can't think of anything

37:07

else that really like either threw me off

37:09

or be like, definitely surprised me from

37:11

the re-submission process.

37:14

I think the most surprising thing

37:16

for me is, I

37:19

don't know, at some point in

37:21

your career, you feel like everyone

37:23

is out to really critique everything you do

37:26

and to tear it down,

37:29

but realizing that the

37:31

reviewer is ultimately one

37:33

at what was best for the applicant. So

37:35

coming away from it and not thinking that,

37:37

okay, their raising concerns

37:40

for things that you may face that

37:42

you haven't thought about because

37:45

it equates to you being successful.

37:48

So really I think the one thing I learned is that

37:50

each reviewer really wanted me

37:52

ultimately to be successful. So

37:54

using that attitude going forward

37:56

was really helpful. It made me more appreciative

37:59

of the process.

38:01

I guess all I'll say is it took more

38:03

time than I thought it would just

38:05

in terms of getting all the documents together. And again,

38:08

I started out thinking, ah , you know, it's mostly

38:10

written, I just have to do some revisions, but you know,

38:12

you have to get all the documents. You have to get new letters

38:15

of recommendation from, you know, all the people

38:17

and, you know, still gather all the bio-sketches It, you

38:19

know, all that stuff takes a lot of time. And so

38:22

make sure you give yourself plenty of time to put that together.

38:26

And you also have to write one new

38:28

page, which is the introduction

38:31

to the re-submission. So do

38:33

you all want to talk about how you

38:35

approached that document? What

38:37

were your goals for the introduction?

38:39

And what were you trying to accomplish or

38:42

get across in this one page? And

38:47

for our listeners, if you were going to

38:49

resubmit an application, you have

38:51

to include this one page introduction?

38:55

So the ultimate goal is

38:57

to think about if, if

38:59

you have three reviewers and all three of these

39:02

reviewers will be looking at your application

39:04

again, you want to make sure that

39:06

you have really taken time

39:08

for all three reviewers and address their concerns.

39:11

So trying to find that perfect balance

39:14

and being able to cipher through

39:17

your comments and really pick

39:19

out those things that were,

39:22

that the r eview f elt really passionate about

39:24

and make sure you make it very plain,

39:26

exactly how you a ddress each

39:29

of those comments.

39:30

I think that's the most important thing to

39:32

accomplish. And page one, I

39:35

had to come out of myself for a little bit

39:37

because ultimately when you have a summary

39:39

statement, you will have things that, you know , they

39:41

say really great about you and

39:43

about your application. And I

39:46

think when I wrote my very first introduction,

39:49

I wanted to reiterate all those great

39:51

things. And my mentor had some pulled me

39:53

back and was like, that's not what this page is for.

39:56

They already know you're great, but now you have to

39:58

address the things that were problematic. So

40:01

I think being able to back

40:03

away from those things and not

40:05

just say, Oh, these are all the great things you said

40:07

about me. Let me reiterate those to you.

40:10

So you remember as you reread this,

40:12

but really addressing the heart, the comments, the

40:14

hard things.

40:17

So my goals for

40:19

the one page introduction

40:21

for the re-submission, was to make sure

40:24

that my reviewers knew that I addressed

40:26

all of their major critiques [laughter] within

40:28

my application. And I

40:31

made sure that all

40:33

of them were very apparent within

40:35

that introduction page. I even think I bolded

40:37

them and that introduction page. And so

40:39

they stood out, but that was really

40:41

the goal was to make sure they understood that

40:44

I had addressed all those things within my application

40:46

somewhere.

40:49

The one thing I appreciate as

40:51

a reviewer is when an applicant

40:53

actually takes all of the comments and

40:56

addresses them and not just write off

40:58

a comment. If there's something that you ultimately

41:00

cannot address, then at some

41:03

point it needs to be stated

41:05

explicitly why you didn't address

41:07

it, but don't just ignore all the

41:09

comments because ultimately the reviewers

41:12

put a lot of time and effort

41:14

outside of their normal schedule to take the time

41:16

to review and provide feedback. So

41:19

it just really shows your appreciation

41:21

for that by addressing their comments.

41:23

I think that's great advice because we definitely see that

41:25

there's just such a temptation to

41:29

pretend [laughter] they didn't say

41:31

things that you don't like.

41:33

Maybe they won't remember!

41:36

But no, they always remember!

41:42

So the introduction page,

41:44

the way I said it, it's like your one page to show,

41:47

hey guys, you know, this is a much better application

41:49

than the first one I put in and

41:52

I've really taken the

41:55

reviewers comments to heart and I've taken the time

41:58

to address what they saw as the major

42:00

problem's and to improve the application

42:02

significantly. So I think in my introduction

42:05

to the re-submission, you know, I like to start

42:08

with kind of just summarizing what the reviewers

42:10

like their enthusiasm about your

42:12

initial submission. Say like, listen,

42:14

the reviewers initially saw there were a lot of strengths.

42:17

They were excited about the science and

42:19

that just at least sets the stage

42:21

of like this application was worth re-submitting.

42:24

And then from there, you can say, but there were some criticisms

42:27

and then you go and you

42:29

try to summarize the major ones. You know,

42:31

obviously there's always going to be some minor

42:33

things that are easily fixed, but really the major

42:35

ones for my K 23

42:38

re- submission, I organized that basically using

42:41

the core criteria. So I organized

42:43

it by the sections of candidate training

42:45

plan, research plan, mentors, institutional

42:48

support. And within each of those, I

42:50

highlighted what I saw were the major

42:52

critiques and then a quick sentence

42:54

or two on how I addressed those

42:57

things. What was different in the re-submission.

42:59

So that by the time the reviewers get to the end of the page,

43:02

you know, they have a sense of, okay, this is a substantially

43:04

different application and it looks

43:06

like they've addressed, at least from

43:09

the superficial one-page read , they've addressed

43:11

the major issues. It kind of sets the stage

43:13

for them reading the rest of the application, I think.

43:16

Yeah, just to add on that a bit, I also

43:18

made sure that if there are any major new developments

43:21

that weren't a part of the initial application

43:23

were also highlighted within that introductory page

43:25

as well. So , uh

43:27

, I had a lot more mouse data than I

43:29

did from my initial application. So

43:32

in that re-submission introduction, I made sure that

43:34

it was known there that like

43:36

this model was validated. It's pretty much ready

43:38

to use, how are we going to do things going forward?

43:43

No, that's a great point. I think this one page,

43:46

which can seem either too short

43:48

or too long, what you have

43:50

to say, but I think that's a really great

43:53

point, Corey , that Alice might've mentioned this earlier

43:55

is if you've been really productive

43:58

and you've made major headway, or

44:00

you perhaps gained some of these skills and the time

44:02

that you submitted your application, or you've

44:05

been able to get more animals

44:07

into your study, this is a great opportunity to highlight

44:09

that and show that you've used this

44:11

time wisely and that you

44:14

are in a better position to submit the

44:16

same sort of body of work

44:18

, um , or the same general

44:20

research proposal that has been,

44:22

you know, picked up a little bit and hopefully

44:25

stronger than what was previously

44:27

submitted. Thank

44:36

you all for sharing your wisdom today. And

44:38

can I ask each of you for one last piece

44:40

of parting advice for our future applicants?

44:44

So I would tell all applicants don't

44:47

get discouraged. It is normal for

44:49

any application to not get funded

44:52

on his first admission, really

44:54

do plan for your re-submission.

44:57

So the biggest thing for me

44:59

was not knowing what I did not

45:01

know, and to really address

45:04

that for future applications. I made it

45:06

a point to talk to people

45:08

more casually about applications. Cause I'll ask

45:10

questions beforehand, but I'll only ask specific questions

45:13

and there'll be things that I will lose through the wire

45:15

just because I did not know to ask them. So

45:18

I was just talking, talking to people

45:20

is very important just to figure out what

45:22

aspects of applications are important and

45:25

what things we really need to focus on.

45:27

Share. You'll have your summary statements and things

45:29

there too. But I think that's just a

45:31

good piece of advice going forward just to make sure

45:33

something that wasn't addressed in the summary statement

45:36

is not missed within your re-submission.

45:42

Yeah, I think I'd say that persistence

45:45

pays off this research

45:47

career is a really, it's a long

45:50

term thing. It's much more like running a marathon

45:52

than running sprints and just

45:55

be persistent and you'll eventually succeed.

45:58

I'd also say don't take things personally.

46:01

It's very easy to, we all work

46:03

really hard and we put a lot

46:05

of effort into what we do. And , and obviously

46:07

we all think that what we do is really important,

46:10

but you know, don't, don't

46:13

take things personally and just remember that

46:15

at the end of the day, the

46:17

reviews are in a way, an opportunity for

46:19

you to improve what you do and

46:22

to make what the science that you do better.

46:24

And then last also ask

46:26

for feedback early and often.I have

46:29

a lot of people read your grants. I

46:31

have my husband, who's not in science at

46:33

all. Sometimes read things

46:35

that I write because I want to make sure it's so

46:37

clear and so easy to understand

46:40

that someone who's not even in science

46:43

could get it, you know, so make things

46:45

as easy as possible as you can for the reviewers

46:48

to understand what you're trying to get across.

46:51

So I guess my last piece of advice

46:53

would be , um, remember this is

46:56

a journey ultimately for you to achieve

46:58

your goals and for

47:00

you to be successful. And

47:02

it always may feel

47:04

like that the reviewers

47:07

are against you or that

47:10

you are in a very stressful situation

47:13

because you're thinking about funding. But

47:15

ultimately if you

47:17

take the opportunity to really learn

47:20

from the reviewers and learn from each experience,

47:23

it actually makes you a better writer

47:25

pushing forward. And I

47:28

won't say that it necessarily gets easier,

47:30

because you're going to go through it every single time you put

47:32

in an application, but never give up.

47:34

If you don't do it, y ou'll never be successful.

47:37

So just keep pushing.

47:41

Yeah, I will say , um , if you do

47:43

take it personal, use that as

47:45

fuel to improve. I think

47:47

a lot of times we can suffer from

47:49

this impostor syndrome, but really

47:51

that's an opportunity to say, you know, maybe I'm not

47:54

at my best. Maybe there's more room

47:56

to grow. And the best way to grow is having

47:58

feedback and critique doesn't always have

48:00

to be a bad thing, even if they don't feel

48:03

super positive and like there's

48:05

rainbows coming out of everything. That's

48:07

to say about what you've written. That's an opportunity

48:10

to take a step back and

48:12

say, how can I do this better either? I didn't

48:14

write something clearly. Or maybe that was really

48:16

just a bad aim that

48:18

maybe the science wasn't really where it needed

48:20

to be. So even if you do take it personal,

48:23

use that and flip it and make

48:25

something greater. And if you're anything

48:27

like me, a little petty, you want to give your

48:30

haters a reason to feel the way they feel

48:32

about you. I did this and boom,

48:34

I did this even better and you can't

48:36

deny me because I have come back with something

48:38

really fantastic. So you're

48:41

a part of a community of scientists.

48:43

We don't do science on our own and it's

48:45

necessary to have your peers

48:47

evaluate the way in which you're doing things.

48:49

So this is all part of the process. You will also

48:52

be eventually one day a reviewer and reviewing

48:54

other people. It's not about being nice.

48:56

It's not about being always

48:58

positive necessarily, but it is

49:01

about providing feedback on how you can

49:03

strengthen yourself as a scientist.

49:05

One can strengthen themselves as a scientist

49:08

and their science. What

49:10

about you, Lauren?

49:12

Hmm . Yeah! This is all really good advice!

49:15

I think in the

49:17

vein of getting feedback

49:19

and getting that outside perspective--you know,

49:22

that's all that the reviewers are offering,

49:24

right? And they

49:26

may be right, they may be wrong.

49:29

And the only way that you

49:32

will be able to determine that is if

49:34

you really concretely engage

49:36

with them, you assume that they have good faith

49:38

and really think, yeah, is it that

49:41

there's something fundamentally

49:43

that I didn't think about? Is it that I didn't communicate

49:45

it as well as I could've? And then

49:48

how am I gonna change this

49:50

grant product that I'm writing

49:52

to get my

49:55

ideas across? Um, and the only way

49:57

to do that is to get that

49:59

outside perspective and feedback and then

50:01

try and try again. So I'm basically

50:03

just repeating everything that everyone else just said,

50:06

but I just think it's so important

50:08

and it's such a fundamental part of

50:11

the way that we do science

50:13

and it can be difficult, but we get through

50:15

it, as Marguerite said, through our community

50:18

and through our support system.

50:20

So I think that's probably the

50:22

most important part of succeeding in science,

50:25

period. So I'll leave it there. And

50:35

so, yeah, that's a wrap for season two

50:37

of building up the nerve! I want to give

50:39

a huge thank you to our guests this week

50:41

for sharing their expertise and thank

50:44

you to NINDS program director,

50:46

Dr. Bob Riddle, who composed our theme song

50:48

and music.

50:50

And you can find past episodes like the

50:52

review episode from season one and

50:54

many more grant application resources

50:56

on the web at NINDS.nih.gov. Follow us

51:01

on Twitter @NINDSDiversity and

51:04

@NINDSFunding. And you can send

51:06

us your ideas and questions about season 3 at NINDSNervePod@nih .gov . Make

51:13

sure you subscribe to the podcast on Apple podcasts

51:16

or your podcast app of choice so

51:18

you don't miss an episode.