Archive for the 'NIH' category

Ask DrugMonkey: How do we focus the reviewer on 'Innovation'?

Mar 18 2014 Published by under Fixing the NIH, Grant Review, NIH, NIH funding

As you are aware, Dear Reader, despite attempts by the NIH to focus the grant reviewer on the "Innovation" criterion, the available data show that the overall Impact score for a NIH Grant application correlates best with Significance and Approach.

Jeremy Berg first posted data from NIGMS showing that Innovation was a distant third behind Significance and Approach. See Berg's blogposts for the correlations with NIGMS grants alone and a followup post on NIH-wide data broken out for each IC. The latter emphasized how Approach is much more of a driver than any other of the criterion scores.

This brings me to a query recently directed to the blog which wanted to know if the commentariat here had any brilliant ideas on how to effectively focus reviewer attention on the Innovation criterion.

There is a discussion to be had about novel approaches supporting innovative research. I can see that the Overall Impact score is correlated better with the Approach and not very well with the Innovation criterion score. This is the case even for funding mechanisms which are supposed to be targeting innovative research, including specific RFAs (i.e., not only the R21).

From one side, it is understandable because reviewers' concerns over the high risk associated with innovative research and lack of solid preliminary data. But on the other side, risk is the very nature of innovative research and the application should not be criticized heavily for this supposed weakness. From my view, for innovative research, the overall score should be correlated well with Innovation score.

So, I am wondering whether the language for these existing review criteria should be revised, whether additional review criterion instructing reviewers to appropriately evaluate innovation should be added and how this might be accomplished. (N.b. heavily edited for anonymity and other reasons. Apologies to the original questioner for any inaccuracies this introduced -DM)

My take on NIH grant reviewer instruction is that the NIH should do a lot more of it, instead of issuing ill-considered platitudes and then wringing their hands about a lack of result. My experience suggests that reviewers are actually really good (on average) about trying to do a fair job of the task set in front of them. The variability and frustration that we see applicants express about significantly divergent reviews of their proposals reflects, I believe, differential reviewer interpretation about what the job is supposed to be. This is a direct reflection of the uncertainty of instruction, and the degree to which the instruction cannot possibly fit the task.

With respect to the first point, Significance is an excellent example. What is "Significant" to a given reviewer? Well, there is wide latitude.

Does the project address an important problem or a critical barrier to progress in the field? If the aims of the project are achieved, how will scientific knowledge, technical capability, and/or clinical practice be improved? How will successful completion of the aims change the concepts, methods, technologies, treatments, services, or preventative interventions that drive this field?

Well? What is the reviewer to do with this? Is the ultimate pizza combo of "all of the above" the best? Is the reviewer's pet "important problem" far more important than any sort of attempt to look at the field as a whole? For that matter, why should the field as a whole trump the Small Town Grocer interest...after all, the very diversity of research interests is what protects us from group-think harms. Is technical capability sufficient? Is health advance sufficient? Does the one trump the other? How the hell does anyone know what will prove to be a "critical" barrier and what will be a false summit?

To come back to my correspondent's question, I don't particularly want the NIH to get more focused on this criterion. I think any and all of the above CAN represent a highly significant aspect of a grant proposal. Reviewers (and applicants) should be allowed to wrangle over this. Perhaps even more important for today's topic, the Significance recommendations from NIH seem to me to capture almost everything that a peer scientist might be looking for as "Significance". It captures the natural distribution of what the extramural scientists feel is important in a grant proposal.

You may have noticed over the years that for me, "Significance" is the most important criterion. In particular, I would like to see Approach de-emphasized because I think this is the most kabuki-theatre-like aspect of review. (The short version is that I think nitpicking well-experienced* investigators' description of what they plan to do is useless in affecting the eventual conduct of the science.)

Where I might improve reviewer instruction on this area is trying to get them to be clear about which of these suggested aspects of Significance are being addressed. Then to encourage reviewers to state more clearly why/why not these sub-criteria should be viewed as strengths or lack thereof.

With respect to second point raised by the correspondent, the Innovation criterion is a clear problem. One NIH site says this about the judgment of Innovation:

Does the application challenge and seek to shift current research or clinical practice paradigms by utilizing novel theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions? Are the concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions novel to one field of research or novel in a broad sense? Is a refinement, improvement, or new application of theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions proposed?

The trouble is not a lack of reviewer instruction, however. The fact is that many of us extramural scientists simply do not buy into the idea that every valuable NIH Grant application has to be innovative. Nor do we think that mere Innovation (as reflected in the above questions) is the most important thing. This makes it a different problem when this is co-equal with criteria for which the very existence as a major criterion is not in debate.

I think a recognition of this disconnect would go a long way to addressing the NIH's apparent goal of increasing innovation. The most effective thing that they could do, in my view, is to remove Innovation as one of the five general review criteria. This move could then be coupled to increased emphasis on FOA criteria and an issuance of Program Announcements and RFAs that were highly targeted to Innovation.

For an SEP convened in response to an RFA or PAR that emphasizes innovation....well, this should be relatively easy. The SRO simply needs to hammer relentlessly on the idea that the panel should prioritize Innovation as defined by...whatever. Use the existing verbiage quoted above, change it around a little....doesn't really matter.

As I said above, I believe that reviewers are indeed capable of setting aside their own derived criteria** and using the criteria they are given. NIH just has to be willing to give very specific guidance. If the SRO / Chair of a study section make it clear that Innovation is to be prioritized over Approach then it is easy during discussion to hammer down an "Approach" fan. Sure, it will not be perfect. But it would help a lot. I predict.

I'll leave you with the key question though. If you were to try to get reviewers to focus on Innovation, how would you accomplish this goal?

*Asst Professor and above. By the time someone lands a professorial job in biomedicine they know how to conduct a dang research project. Furthermore, most of the objections to Approach in grant review are the proper province of manuscript review.

**When it comes to training a reviewer how to behave on study section, the first point of attack is the way that s/he has perceived the treatment of their own grant applications in the past***. The second bit of training is the first round or two of study section service. Every section has a cultural tone. It can even be explicit during discussion such as "Well, yes it is Significant and Innovative but we would never give a good score to such a crappy Approach section". A comment like that makes it pretty clear to a new-ish reviewer on the panel that everything takes a back seat to Approach. Another panel might be positively obsessed with Innovation and care very little for the point-by-point detailing of experimental hypotheses and interpretations of various predicted outcomes.

***It is my belief that this is a significant root cause of "All those Assistant Professors on study section don't know how to review! They are too nitpicky! They do not respect my awesome track record! What do you mean they question my productivity because I list three grants on each paper?" complaining.

12 responses so far

Enforcing collaboration via grant review

Mar 16 2014 Published by under Grantsmanship, NIH, NIH Careerism, NIH funding

I am wondering whether anyone else is noticing any trends for prioritizing multiple-lab NIH grant proposals.

I recently got busted on, somewhat randomly given the proposal, for not including enough other faculty level investigators. At the time I shrugged it off as an annoying hobby-horse issue of one reviewer.

But Multi-PI proposals have been going over well for some time now, from appearances. So perhaps it is a trend and study sections will start punishing single-lab grants?

I am not sure what to make of this, should it become a trend.

The comment I received smelled to me like "why are you not bringing your junior faculty along for the ride?"...bu perhaps I am over interpreting.

17 responses so far

Your Grant in Review: I Can't Work With This

Mar 14 2014 Published by under Grant Review, Grantsmanship, NIH, NIH Careerism

Reminder. You are going to have advocates and detractor reviewing your grant proposals. Your goal is to give the advocate what she needs to promote your proposal.

No matter how much the advocate might love the essential ideas in your application, nothing good is going to happen if you violate every rule of basic grantsmithing.

At the least you should be able to put together a proposal that gets it mostly right. Credible. Serious. Without huge gaping holes or obvious piles of StockCritique bait lying around everywhere.

It should not be hard to give the advocating reviewer something they can work with.

17 responses so far

Guest Post: BUILDing Diversity with Dollars: Can Grants Change Culture

This guest post is from @iGrrrl, a grant writing consultant. I think I first ran across her in the comments over at writedit's place, you may have as well. She brings a slightly different, and highly valuable, perspective to the table.

iGrrlCartoonThere was an old New Yorker cartoon of two people at a party, and one tells the other, "I'm a fiction writer in the grant-proposal genre." I hate putting fiction in grant applications, especially the type that will be due shortly in response to the Ginther report.

For those who have been worrying about their own grant applications, the Ginther report detailed the relationship of race and ethnicity to NIH grant funding at the R01 level, and NIH has created a few initiatives to try to change the pattern of lower success rates for African American applicants. In early April, the applications are due for the Building Infrastructure Leading to Diversity (BUILD) Initiative, which would fund large-scale projects within individual institutions, and the NIH National Research Mentoring Network (NRMN), which is designed to build a network of mentors. In other words, diversity interventions writ large, with millions of dollars behind them.

The NSF ADVANCE program started in a similar way, and some of the early ADVANCE projects included programs with a limited evidence base. The successes of components of these programs were variable, and the recent RFA included a social science research component to complement the required evaluation of ADVANCE-funded activity. It started with good intentions, and eventually became clear that more than good intentions were needed. Part of the NRMN announcement calls for pilot programs, but I would argue that in the first year, the network should do the social science work to consolidate the anecdotes African Americans tell about their mentoring experiences into hard data, so that the pilot programs can be based upon addressing the needs identified by African Americans who have been through, or training right now in, the current system.

At the recent AAAS meeting in Chicago there were sessions on building diversity in science. At one I learned that explicit bias has reduced in the last 30 years, but implicit bias hasn't. We think we have made progress, and that our conscious intentions are enough. But they clearly are not. Expecting trainees to overcome biased behaviors (to which the actors are blind) places an undue burden on those who are discriminated against. There are studies showing that education about implicit bias helps to reduce such biased behavior, but education attempts can also be done badly and backfire. As pointed out in a recent piece in Science by Moss-Racusin, et al., there is an evidence base now for doing intervention well. If NIH is putting money into large-scale intervention, I hope the existing science will be part of the applications, and expected by the reviewers.

I've spent a lot of my professional life working on exactly the kind of large, infrastructure-based grant application represented by the BUILD and NRMN programs. It is easy for PIs to make assumptions that interventions that sound good on paper will actually have any impact. My concern is that what will be proposed by the applicants to BUILD and NRMN may miss the strong social science work that exists, and that still needs to be done. In fact, some of the best research on effective mentoring is the business literature, a place where few biomedical scientists would think to look.

Grant applications shouldn't be pure fiction, but based on solid evidence. Every grant application represents a possibility, a reality, that could come to pass if the funds are awarded. In the mentoring literature, practices that improve the success for African Americans are often shown to improve the climate for everyone. There is an opportunity here for those in biomedicine to learn from other fields, to consider an evidence base that is outside their usual ken, and to improve the entire biomedical enterprise by improving the overall environment. I hope that those applying for BUILD and the NRMN include the social sciences, and even more importantly, include the voices and ideas of the very people these programs are meant to serve.

NIH has a long history of using dollars to encourage cultural change, with mixed results, because applicants can have varying levels of commitment to the NIH vision while being happy to take NIH dollars. The ADVANCE program at NSF had some hiccups as they worked out what worked to improve the climate for women in STEM. The leadership teams for BUILD and NRMN should include people with a deep knowledge of the research and scholarship on bias and on mentoring, and who can do the rigorous analysis of the current state of affairs for African Americans in biomedical science. I hope I'm wrong here in worrying that such people won't be included, but I've seen fiction in grant applications a few too many times.

No responses yet

A NIH Grant Applicant's Calming Mantra

Mar 10 2014 Published by under Grant Review, Grantsmanship, NIH Careerism

"No matter how ridiculous the summary statement comment, it helps you to write better proposals in the future."

11 responses so far

Guest Post: The brightest and the most insightful people in the country?

Mar 08 2014 Published by under Academics, Careerism, NIH, NIH Careerism, Public Health

bluebirdhappinessThis is a guest appearance of the bluebird of Twitter happiness known as My T Chondria. I am almost positive the bird does some sort of science at some sort of US institution of scientific research. The bird is normally exhausted by typing messages 140 characters at a time so I was skeptical but....well, see for yourself.

MDs and PhDs are considered to be some of the brightest and the most insightful people in the country. Indeed, look no further than the nearest MD or PhD and ask them; they will attest at great length to their exceptional smarts and individual importance in maintaining the sun orbiting the Earth. Yet for all the combined education there remains a fundamental lack of appreciation of how intertwined the fate of these two professions are - ranking right up there on the irony scale with Pakistan threatening to nuke India (they are geographic neighbors, so that’s ironic, you see).

For anyone who has ever worked at a major academic medical center, we are told ad nausea how important we are in understanding human health. Yet we do so almost exclusively in parallel universes. Asked what its like to try to work with an MD, a PhD will often tell you MDs are ‘erratic, ill informed and totally lacking in any understanding of what goes into doing real research’. Conversely, asked what PhDs do, MDs will likely reply ‘they like to present very complex diagrams, write grants and develop models of disease and pathology that have little to do with any case I’ve ever seen.

I get to surf between these groups; my primary appointment in a clinical department affords me a perspective that is unique in that I am able to pass as either an MD or a PhD on any given day. I spend the majority of my time running a research lab but I can scream “House! Put down the scalpel you jackass! All you have to do is order a chest x-ray and look for pulmonary infiltrates to know it’s not sarcoidosis!” with the best of interns.

Figure 1. “It’s a fan!” “It's a spear!” The hilarity of people in white coats looking at their own little microcosm of an elephant and being unable to appreciate it is actually a bloated endangered species that could kill them all. And by bloated endangered species, I mean academic medicine*.  *Author note: Am I going to have to explain all my jokes?

Figure 1. “It’s a fan!” “It's a spear!” The hilarity of people in white coats looking at their own little microcosm of an elephant and being unable to appreciate it is actually a bloated endangered species that could kill them all. And by bloated endangered species, I mean academic medicine*.
*Author note: Am I going to have to explain all my jokes?

In drifting between these lands, I noticed the rifts earlier between ‘researchers and doctors’ which seemed vaguely amusing not so much now as first but as the business of academic medical is getting the shitte kicked out of it and PhDs think it has little to do with them.

In previous faculty meetings, I would watch tenure track PhDs glaze over as our beloved leader discussed the ‘blah, blah’ of clinical revenue streams.

Conversely, the MDs would eagerly reengage a new level of Candy Crush Saga as our chair commiserated with PhDs about pay lines and sequestration. (So clueless were the MDs about the recent plight of scientists that the esteemed journal JAMA even had to run an article in their online edition earlier in the year explaining sequestration to the primarily MD audience.)

At our most recent faculty meeting, there seemed to be a moment of real illumination between both groups that everyone in the medical center was screwed and better start making more widgets faster. Our Fearless Leader informed faculty that our hospital budget shortfall was progressing more quickly than we had anticipated even three months ago and vacations were canceled for faculty, more clinical hours were going to need to be booked and the bergermeister was coming to take all our toys (only two of these three have happened so far).

Figure 2. Predoctoral kitten downed by lack of understand of the health care industry on academic medicine.

Figure 2. Predoctoral kitten downed by lack of understand of the health care industry on academic medicine.

Later that day, I took to on Twitter to vent and look for pictures of kittens doing cute things (see Fig 2 as evidence of my hard work). Many of my Twitter followers are porn bots, but at least 2 or 3 are PhD-types and aghast that my medical center was being so aggressive. There were many sad emoji’s sent my way and a flutter of ‘how could they’ and ‘oh, your poor little university’ that made me wonder what planet everyone is on and if donuts were as delicious there as they were here (see Storify by @mrhansaker here).

EVERY medical center in the US is getting carpet bombed into financial oblivion by the economy, Medicare reimbursements and Obamacare. And yes, I assured my Tweeps, the amount of our gross national product that goes to health care is stoopidly high. But, a startling number of my PhD buddies were taken aback by the idea that those pesky ‘high health are cost’ they glaze over in faculty meeting or when listening to NPR is also covering their academic PhD arses.

So, for my PhD pals, whom I shall refer to as ‘People who are doctors only when they book hotel rooms’ (I’m kidding, I’m a kidder!), I wanted to run this down a bit further. If you have a medical center as part of your university, you have been riding clinician’s financial coat tails for a long friggin time. The indirect rate charged to granting organizations in no way covers operating costs for research. That takes an endowment or an additional revenue stream. Endowments usually come from long dead old rich doods. These endowments don't just sit in Scrooge McDucks cave. They get invested in things like the stock market. And the stock market got the shitte kicked out of not too long ago. Billions in endowment money were lost in the economic collapse - most Universities took 25-50% hits on their Scrooge McDuck funds. So, if you’re a PhD, you can take endowments out of the equation as what’s been filling in those pesky financial gaps between costs and expenses. No worries, you’re at a medical center so you have a revenue stream- your clinical enterprise. Sick people. America is ALWAYS good for some damn unhealthy and foolish folks who will make the worst choices possible and rack up a small fortune in insured and uninsured care.

Thank God for stoopid and unhealthy people, amirite?? This is even better because our Commander-in-Chief got an electoral mandate to insure everyone’s (ish) stoopid arse. More money for medical centers has got to be a win, yes? Not so much. Show me a medical center meeting its financial goals, hell even one that isn’t heading for a hundreds of millions of dollars of deficit for 2014, and I will show you a for profit medical center (read here: “not academic, so no jobs for you PhDs”).

The proverbial sky has been falling for research scientists for some time now as well documented by my kind host Drug Monkey and others with inferior blogs and better shoes. And indeed, MDs have been hounded into appreciating the genius that is the bench scientist. So valued are the basic researchers that they are sought after to heap more prestige on the medical center and an even better training environment which increases numbers of trainees, blah, blah.
Unlike clinicians, scientists have known the economic sky was falling for some time and have been zealously advocating the importance of science research bracing for impact. To the outside world, that looks a lot like holding your collective sphincters together as tightly as humanly possible and waiting for things to improve. Well-done people. Actually, you sort of sucked at advocating for yourselves as evidenced by the two of you who actually sent @nparmalee letters to hand deliver to your Congress Critters a few weeks ago, but I will need another bottle of wine for that.

The first warning to those PhD types in the 35+-age bracket would have been when Scamp-in-Chief Bill Clinton never quite delivered on his ‘peace dividend’. The one where all those pesky defense dollars would go to building a bigger, better, smarter American work force with futures in STEM (Dumber Bombs! Smarter People!). We would turn in our tanks and churn out better-educated versions of ourselves with outstanding oral hygiene to lead us forth into the new millennium free of disease and with cats with laser vision. Not only did we forget to provide sustainable growth mechanisms for STEM, we also neglected to maintain world peace and not screw the interns. Bill, you lovable rascal, at least you didn’t shoot anyone in the face. Just in the foot. Or both feet.


In the parallel world of MDs, who kindly request you simply refer to them as ‘real doctors’ for the rest of this diatribe, the pesky business of health care in academia has always been a house of cards. About 7% of MDs practice in the rare air that is academic medicine. This affords prestige, time for clinical research, collegiality, security and none of the business hassles of private practice, but about half the salary. Which, to be honest, is still a metric shitte ton of money especially if you do a bit of consulting. But now, there’s no research time, Medicaid is squeezing out every reimbursable dime and you are keeping the same hours as your hapless residents.

My take home from today friends is that the party seems to be winding down. Rather than recognizing that our fates are intertwined, MDs and PhDs frantically see more patients and write more grants and wonder when the sun will shine on us once again and society will appreciate our true worth. I have yet to see any evidence that for all the brain power and letters after peoples names, PhDs are even aware of that medicine money is research money. So you go put your blinders on and find that spear, and I’ll put mine on and grab this rope and no one will call it an elephant.

34 responses so far

Berg requests your input on NIH data mining queries

This is important enough to elevate to an entry.

I had a recent post discussing some analysis Jeremy Berg posted at ASBMB Today ("The impact of the sequester: 1,000 fewer funded investigators") looking at some NIH data on the number of PIs who entered and exited the R-mech funded population across FY11-13.


He came by and left this comment:

I would welcome any suggestions about other longitudinal aspects of the NIH grantee pool that might be high priorities for analysis. Post here, at or email me at

So if you can clearly specify some sort of examination of the extramural PI population go to it! He's apparently the guy who can actually make it happen.



No responses yet

Do you always get about the same score on your NIH grant?

Feb 11 2014 Published by under Grantsmanship, NIH, NIH Careerism, NIH funding

This question is mostly for the more experienced of the PItariat in my audience. I'm curious as to whether you see your grant scores as being very similar over the long haul?

That is, do you believe that a given PI and research program is going to be mostly a "X %ile" grant proposer? Do your good ones always seem to be right around 15%ile? Or for that matter in the same relative position vis a vis the presumed payline at a given time?

Or do you move around? Sometimes getting 1-2%ile, sometimes midway to the payline, sometimes at the payline, etc?

This latter describes my funded grants better. A lot of relative score (i.e., percentile) diversity.

It strikes me today that this very experience may be what reinforces much of my belief about the random nature of grant review. Naturally, I think I put up more or less the same strength of proposal each time. And naturally, I think each and every one should be funded.

So I wonder how many people experience more similarity in their scores, particularly for their funded or near-miss applications. Are you *always* coming in right at the payline? Or are you *always* at X %ile?

In a way this goes to the question of whether certain types of grant applications are under greater stress when the paylines tighten. The hypothesis being that perhaps a certain type of proposal is never going to do better than about 15%ile. So in times past, no problem, these would be funded right along with the 1%ile AMAZING proposals. But in the current environment, a change in payline makes certain types of grants struggle more.

42 responses so far

I just don't understand these "basic science eleventy" NIH funded people

Feb 10 2014 Published by under NIH, NIH Careerism

I don't. I just don't. I cannot in anyway understand scientists who are offended that they have to some up with some thin veneer of health-relevance to justify the grant award they are seeking. The H in NIH stands for "Health". The mission statement reads:

NIH’s mission is to seek fundamental knowledge about the nature and behavior of living systems and the application of that knowledge to enhance health, lengthen life, and reduce illness and disability.

Yeah, sure, if you end at the seventh word, you can convince yourself that the NIH is about basic research. Maybe you get to continue on to the fifteenth. But this is a highly selective reading. I just don't see where it is a burden to think for a minute or two about whether you are doing anything to address the second half of the statement.

After all, you are asking the taxpayers of the US to front you some serious cash. Millions of dollars for many of the PIs who are complaining about how hard it is to get basic research grants funded (BRAINI proponents, I'm looking at you). It really isn't that much of an insult to ask you to pay something back on the matter of public health.

50 responses so far

We need to encourage more of this

Feb 10 2014 Published by under Academics, Careerism, NIH, NIH Careerism, NIH funding

An RT Tweet from @betenoire1 was making the rounds of my Twitter feed today. It points to a Facebook polemic from a Leon Avery, Phd. (CV; RePORTER). He says that he is Leaving Science.

I have decided, after 40 years as a lab scientist and 24 years running my own lab, to shut it down and leave. I write this to explain why, for those of my friends and colleagues who’d like to know. The short answer is that I’m tired of being a professor.

Okay, no problem. No problem whatsoever. Dude was appointed in 1990 and has been working his tail off for 24 years at the NIH funded extramural grant game. He's burned out. I get this.

I have never liked being a boss. My happiest years as a scientist were when I was a student and then a postdoc. I knew I wouldn’t like running a lab, and I didn’t like it. This has always been true.
My immediate plans are to go back to school and get a degree in Mathematics. This too has been a passion of mine ever since high-school sophomore Geometry, when I first learned what math is really about. And my love of it has increased in recent years as I have learned more. It will be tremendous fun to go back and learn those things that I didn’t have the time or the money to study as an undergrad.

GREAT! This is awesome. You do one thing until you tire of it and then, apparently, you have the ability to retire into a life of the mind. This is FANTASTIC!

So what's the problem? Well, he can't resist taking a few swipes at NIH funded extramural science, even as he admits he was never cut out for this PI stuff from the beginning. And after a long and easy gig (more on that below) he is distressed by the NIH funding situation. And feels like his way of doing science is under specific attack.

For many years NIH was interested in funding basic research as well as research aimed directly at curing diseases. With the tightening funding has come a focus on so-called “translational research”. Now when we apply for funding we have to explain what diseases our work is going to cure.

Ok, actually, this is the "truthy" part that is launching a thousand discussions of the "real problem" at NIH. So I'm going to address this part to make it very clear to his fans and back thumpers what we are talking about. On RePORTER (link above) we find that Dr Avery had one grant for 22 years. Awarded in April of 1991 and his CV lists 1990 as his first appointment. So within 15 mo (but likely 9 mo given typical academic start dates from about July through Sept) he had R01 support that he maintained through his career. In the final 5 years, he was awarded the R37 which means he has ten years of non-competing renewal. I see another R21 and one more R01. This latter was awarded on the A1. So as far as we can tell, Professor Avery never had to work too hard for his NIH grant funding. I mean sure, maybe he was putting in three grants a round for 20 years and never managed to land anything more than what I have reviewed. Somehow I doubt this. I bet his difficulties getting the necessary grant funding to run his laboratory were not all that steep compared to most of the rest of us plebes.

And actually, his Facebook post backs it up a tiny bit.

And I’ve been lucky that the world was willing to pay me to do it. Now it is hard for me to explain the diseases my work will cure. It feels like selling snake oil. I don’t want to do it any more.

I think the people enthusiastically passing along this Fb post of his maybe should focus on the key bits about his personal desires and tolerance for the job. Instead of turning this into yet another round of: "successful scientist bashes the NIH system now that finally, after all this time of a sweet, sweet ride s/he experiences a bare minimal taster of what the rest of us have faced our entire careers".

Final note on the title: Dude, by all means. Anyone who has had a nice little run with NIH funding and is no longer entused....LEAVE. We'll keep citing you, don't worry. Leave the grants to those of us who still give a crap, though, eh?

UPDATE (comment from @boehninglab):

22 responses so far

« Newer posts Older posts »