Archives

I’ve written lots of grants. Some of them even got funded! Here are some things I learned in my journey from foundation grants to K08 to R01.

Grants beget grants

I was fortunate to have a T32 fellowship during my post-doc, after my clinical training. This helped me gain additional skills in experimental design and statistics. Unfortunately, though, my primary project had a negative phenotype in vivo. I pivoted my research to studying cell-free hemoglobin in lung injury and needed to build a dataset to serve as the foundation for my K08 application. Based on advice from my mentors, I started small and applied for one-year grants from research foundations. These applications are usually more straightforward to put together and can sometimes need less data to be competitive. My first application for a research grant from the American Thoracic Society was successful, which allowed me to hire a research assistant. The extra hands helped me get the preliminary data I needed and strengthen my upcoming career development award applications. Based on the success of my ATS-funded work, I applied and was awarded a Parker B. Francis Fellowship. At that point, I had successfully competed for at least three grants;  although small, this bolstered my credibility and experience as I started to prepare my K.

Take advantage of grant writing resources

The first big grant is the hardest. I hadn’t seen many specific examples of funded grants and was overwhelmed by the number of documents it required. My mentors and near-peer colleagues were willing to share their grants. I also looked at several K08 applications from the funded grants library at my institution, and I enrolled in a grant writing workshop at my institution geared at planning for a K application. This gave me a step-by-step process for crafting a strong and unified application and helped me pace out the work over several months. These institutional resources and network connections were incredibly helpful and made getting my first big grant out the door much more feasible.

Grants require strategy

If you read my last post, you know I have two amazing mentors, Drs. Lorraine Ware and Julie Bastarache. While I consider them equally important to my career, at the time, Julie didn’t yet have major R01 funding, so we decided to have Lorraine serve as my primary K08 mentor with Julie in a co-mentor role. I initially felt terrible about this, because I worried that Julie wouldn’t get credit as my primary mentor, but both assured me that this strategy was essential to turning in the best grant that I could. We worked together to craft an application with strong sections on candidate accomplishments, career development planning, and discovery research. I had specific roles for each member of my advisory committee too.

As I started to plan my first R01 application, it was great to really dig into the mechanistic science. I had so many ideas and too many Aims to include. It was a struggle to decide what the final draft would be. I hadn’t quite realized how important it was to work out the science earlier in the grant writing process. The budget is usually due two weeks before the grant goes in. You have to turn in subcontract budgets two or three weeks before that. It turns out that you can’t write a budget if you haven’t settled on the science. Your budget also affects how much science you can do and who you can do it with, so you need to understand the details early on. Money matters and a realistic budget is key to the success of a project.

Understand the grant review process

After my K, I had some experience with the numerous components of a training grant. I worked over the next several years to develop a project to lead to my first R and was working on selling my science. I was selected to participate in the NIH’s Early Career Reviewer program. Not only is it fun to read other people’s science—they’re doing cool stuff and you learn a lot—but it’s really helpful to see other styles of grant writing. I found that grantsmanship really affected how well reviewers could summarize a grant. As you may know, three reviewers are assigned to each grant and read the whole thing. These three scores determine whether your grant gets discussed or not. The other 25 or so people in the room listen to the discussion, look at the figures and bolded words, and their scores get you funded.

(Shocking, right? But true.)

This experience taught me to really focus on the audience for your grant proposal. Consider what you can do as a writer to make the reviewers’ job easier. The more you can repeat key information across the grant, the easier it is for Reviewer 1 to present it to the rest of the study section so they understand what you want to do, get excited about it, and ultimately want to fund it.

Seize opportunity, but do so smartly

Towards the end of my K08, my research was mostly ARDS focused and my clinical work was dedicated to lung transplant. I was hoping to merge these interests with future grants. Then, I learned that a company was planning a longitudinal study of transplant patients that would require biospecimens and clinical data uploading. I jumped at the chance to participate, knowing that this would facilitate transplant-related sample collection that I could use (and reuse) in the future. Even better, the company paid for my time and my study coordinator’s time!

I felt like I was starting to get the hang of this physician-scientist pathway. Then, there was an NIH RFA for a series of U01 grants to develop a Lung Transplant Consortium. This was perfect! An opportunity to network with leaders in lung transplantation and a big grant. However, the U01 mechanism meant splitting the money among institutions. While it would pay for the study, it wouldn’t be sufficient to support my lab or my non-human research. If funded, this would prevent me from using my Early Stage Investigator status for a traditional R01. I talked with my mentors (remember my last post on how fantastic they are?) and we decided that I should be a co-I on the U01 proposal with Dr. Ware as the site PI. This was the perfect balance of Lorraine’s expertise, our shared science, and keeping doors open for my other grant considerations. The grant was funded and it turned out to be a fantastic career opportunity for me.

Follow your passion

You need grants to fund your lab or group. But you also need to really love what you study. I love studying injured lungs. But I really love studying lung transplantation. For various reasons, I’ve mostly studied lung transplant-adjacent fields, through which I gained valuable skills and knowledge, but my dream was to have my clinical and science worlds collide. In late 2020, the Katz R01 mechanism was announced. This grant is for investigators who’ve never had an R01 and are studying something new to them, and it doesn’t allow preliminary data. This was my opportunity to write my dream grant – half human studies, half animal modeling, all on donor lung injury. Although some people around me cautioned against submitting—it would be a lot of work and these grants are unpredictable—I decided to turn it in anyway. If it didn’t get funded, I could get the preliminary data and put it in as a regular R01. I took the (calculated) risk…and then it paid off with a funded R01 (thank you Dr. Katz!).

Don’t get discouraged

I’ve been very fortunate with my early career grant funding. I haven’t told you about the proposals that weren’t funded. Shortly after my first R01 application had a non-fundable score, I was discouraged. I had a meeting with a very senior mentor from my institution who shared with me that they also had a recent grant given a similar unfunded score. We all put in grants that don’t get funded. We all get negative reviews. Most grants need resubmission and many ideas take years to refine into funded projects. It’s the nature of the game, and we can’t take it personally. Always try to find the silver lining in the critiques. I promise you it’s there if you look for it. Get the scores, look at the comments, laugh a little, then put your head down and get back to work.

I’m far from a grant writing expert. It’s still hard and I still need tons of advice. The journey has been fun so far. I have some money to help my lab group continue our discoveries and I’m now learning about managing grants. Every day is an adventure…stay tuned for my next post on advice for an early career scientist.

Read More

Lessons Learned While Building a Career: Mentoring Matters

Fighting Rejection, Reggae Style: Three Little Birds

Friendly Advice from Your NIH Grant Reviewer

In the final post of this three part series, I share insight from a dozen faculty who review NRSA fellowship applications on the mentor’s role in the application, metrics used to assess the strength of an applicant, who to ask to write letters, and interacting with your PO post submission. Be sure to also read Part 1 (when to submit and developing an easily reviewable document) and Part 2 (crafting strong training and research plans).

Role of Mentor(s)

A mentor should have a strong record for developing prior trainees into successful independent researchers. If your mentor is early career and has not trained others to date, include a co-mentor with a well-established training record.

• If adding a co-mentor, clearly state what they bring, how often will you see them (once a month, join their lab meetings, etc.), and how often the three of you will meet. Be sure to state why you chose them and what specifically they bring to your training. Co-mentors who are highly accomplished with the proposed work/techniques can improve the scientific merit and add educational value to your application and training.
• Include a network of mentors, often one for each major training goal (i.e., thesis committee, mentoring panel). Mentors should ideally be faculty with objective markers of expertise such as papers and grants in the area of training.
• One reviewer suggested to always include a statistician as at least a collaborator.
• Your mentor needs to state how research is going to be financially supported. If your mentor has no external funding, he or she must talk about start-up funds or other available financial sources. If a grant is expiring, how will it be renewed or attempted to be renewed?
• Show evidence that you and your mentor put together a well written document.  If it looks like you did most of the work, that will lead to questions about whether the pairing between you and your mentor is productive or not.  It is also a concern if it looks like huge chunks of the application were simply cut and pasted from other applications. Overall, the panel wants to see a well crafted document but in a way that is obviously put together by you, yourself–with polishing help from your mentor.

Metrics

Reviewers look at your background/training to confirm you are well prepared to undertake the proposed area of study.  So what metrics are they looking at when trying to determine which applicants will be successful?

• For predocs it is your undergraduate record (GPA, school, and publications).  For post-docs it’s publications, publications, publications.
• Reviewers want an applicant with strong potential because they do not want to fund people who have no background in science and are starting from square one.  They state there’s too little evidence that those applicants can learn and/or conduct research in the space of interest.
• Study sections tend to look for evidence of potential.  This could include authorship on papers, letters of support that indicate research capabilities, and honors and awards to date.

Letters

• Recommendation letters need to be tailored to the application. Strong letters from highly accomplished leaders are common, but when they are personalized and tailored to you and your proposed research, reviewers pay more attention.
• Recommendation letters should come from someone you have interacted with who can write about you and your mentor/training environment.
• Letters of Support are not necessary unless evident additional support is needed, especially if that support adds to the training plan. If you will be working with a core facility to conduct part of the research or working with a collaborator to gain training in a technique new to you and your lab, ask those individuals to write you a letter of support.

Contact the Program Officer (PO)

I previously provided advice to reach out to your PO prior to submission in order to start building a relationship with the institute. The faculty I spoke with also suggested reaching out to the PO post-submission.

• When you receive your score, contact the PO. They can provide insight into whether or not you received a fundable score. If you need to prepare for a revision, they may have additional notes to share that didn’t make the summary statement. When crafting the resubmission application, be as responsive as possible to the critiques.
• If information in the summary statement doesn’t seem to fit who you are, reach out to the PO for clarification. Sometimes mistakes do happen.

What the F? Advice for Fellowship Applicants from Reviewers. Part 1

What the F? Advice for Fellowship Applicants from Reviewers. Part 2  

In this three part series, I share advice received when I asked a dozen faculty from my institution who review fellowship applications what they look for in a strong application. Part 1 discussed when to submit and logistics around submitting an easily reviewable document. Part 3 provides insight on the mentor’s role, letters, and interacting with the PO. Here, in Part 2, I share the advice they provided on crafting strong training and research plans.

Training Plan, Training Plan, Training Plan

Almost every reviewer I spoke with said the training plan was the most important element of fellowship applications. One faculty member stated, “Remember, this is a training grant. The science has to be good, but what makes the best applications is the training plan.” Additional advice shared regarding the training plan:

• Start with the training plan and work outwards; great science and a bad training plan will not get funded. Great training plan and ok science likely will get funded.
• Have a personalized training plan that discusses your short and long term goals. List specifically what you want to get out of your training experience and what events/training you will participate in (what, when, where). This can be similar to others in your lab or training program, but it should reflect your goals and long term career plans.
• Make clear what the award will offer that your current training does not. If you receive the award, what additional skills will you develop and why are these fundamental to your long-term goals?
• What is the mentor’s role in the training plan? The mentor’s statement and the training plan should mirror one another.

Strong Research Plan

Having a well written and thought out research plan was the second most common piece of advice. One reviewer stated, “Research isn’t supposed to dominate scoring for these applications, but always does if it’s not very well written.” Additional advice:

• How does the science relate to your training and the training relate to your career goals? Integrate training goals into the research plan. Describe how a specific method or type of science gets you to your training goals.
• Don’t try to make the science too exciting. Demonstrate science that will meet your training goals and make the research possible. What makes R01 science good is not the same for a fellowship.
• If you’re writing an application early in your training, you may not have much preliminary data and that’s ok. If you didn’t personally gather the data you’re referencing, be sure to be clear about what you did and didn’t do. Also, show evidence from undergrad that you can be an experimentalist.
• However, if you’re submitting an application later in your training (third year or beyond) and it doesn’t include gathered data, that becomes a red flag.
• Make sure aims have threads in common but can stand alone. Dependent aims are the kiss of death.
• Reviewers look at the feasibility of your proposed research plan.  It’s better to have a smaller, well focused plan with a potential path to completion (along with a description of risks and alternative paths to completion), than a grandiose plan that suggests you don’t know how to systematically investigate a problem.

And the Winner for My Favorite Piece of Advice…Alien Abduction Model

My favorite piece of advice came from a senior faculty member. “If the person writing this application was abducted by aliens would it affect science? If yes, then we should fund them.”

What the F? Advice for Fellowship Applicants from Reviewers. Part 1   

What the F? Advice for Fellowship Applicants from Reviewers. Part 3        

To craft the strongest fellowship application, know what review criteria are in place. A good place to start is Section V. Application Review Information of the program announcement for the technical definition of the review criteria. However, another great source of insight is to ask advice from faculty at your institution who sit on study sections for fellowships . I chatted with a dozen faculty on this topic from my institution and compiled their advice in a three part series. Below is Part 1. Also check out Part 2 on training and research plans and Part 3 on the mentor’s role, letters, and interacting with the PO.

Submit Early in Career

These awards are training grants. Their purpose is to support your training. As such, it is better to apply early rather than wait until your third or fourth year. By then you’ve (hopefully) already collected data so why do you need this training?

• Reviewers usually want to see that pre-docs have passed their qualifying exams. Postdocs need to submit within their first year.
• Sufficient time should be available to complete the aims. You can’t be too junior (not competitive) or too senior (not enough time left to warrant support).

Give Yourself Enough Time to Write and Receive Feedback

• Successful grants require good ideas, good grantsmanship, and good luck. Start early and have your mentors and collaborators review your grant and edit relevant sections (often only a few paragraphs per mentor). If prospective mentors are unresponsive or too busy for this then they are likely also too busy to be a good mentor, so seek out mentors who are accessible and accomplished in the desired area of training.
• There are lots of non-science components that need be superb in order to out compete others. If you start writing early, you’ll have time to craft well-written statements.
• Participate in a mock study section if available.
• Learn from others. Many institutions have a funded grants library. By reading others’ applications you can pull together models of successful elements that make a grant stand out.
• Edit, edit, edit.

Instructions are Important

Take time to read through the application instructions. When applicants don’t read the instructions very carefully it can be frustrating.

• Sometimes applicants state future career goals that don’t align with the purpose of the fellowship award. They’ll state they want to teach or work in policy, but the purpose of these awards is to develop researchers. It is ok if you to want to teach or work in policy, but you must integrate those goals with a career in research.
• Look closely at what the NIH expects for Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR). Make sure your training plan aligns with their requirements. Clearly state how each topic will be covered and how often. Highlight faculty participation in RCR training. Reviewers are seeing training in RCR and for equity & diversity become more and more important pieces of the application.
• A tip from me. Pay close attention to page limits, font sizes, margin requirements, etc. Failure to do so could cause your application to be rejected before it ever gets in front of reviewers.

Simplify, Simply, Simplify

Simplify as much as possible. Whatever you think is simple, multiply that by 10.

• Make it easy for the reader. Highlight important pieces. Use the same terms and vocabulary throughout the application (call training opportunity A the same thing throughout every document).
• Reviewers are unlikely to be an expert in your exact “thing,” so make it easy for them to understand. Convey which areas you have expertise in and which part is new that you’re going to get training in.
• What is the gap in the field? What are you going to bring to it that is special or beyond what people think they know about it?
• Be precise and crystal clear. Don’t use too many acronyms. When a reviewer reads an application that is not clear, it shows lack of training from the mentor, which makes reviewers wonder how engaged the mentor will be throughout the training.
• Know the big picture of why you’re doing this and convince study section its important.

Further Reading

What the F? Advice for Fellowship Applicants from Reviewers. Part 2         

What the F? Advice for Fellowship Applicants from Reviewers. Part 3        

What the F? An Introduction to the NRSA Fellowship

Help! I’m submitting an NIH fellowship application and need a Commons ID. How do I get one?

Let’s start with what eRA Commons and a Commons ID are.

eRA Commons

The NIH describes eRA Commons as “an online interface where grant applicants, grantees and federal staff at NIH and grantor agencies can access and share administrative information relating to research grants. You will use eRA commons throughout the lifecycle of a grant – from application submission to grant closeout.” It’s helpful to learn how to work with the eRA Commons interface early in your research career as you will use it throughout your career to submit and manage NIH grants.

Commons ID

In order to use eRA Commons you must establish a Commons ID and have appropriate roles associated with your profile. This account follows you from one organization to the next throughout your NIH research career. If you were listed on a NIH training grant as an undergraduate you may already have a Commons ID. If you’re unsure, reach out to your grants manager for assistance. (If you aren’t sure who your grants manager is, your graduate or fellowship program administrator can typically point you to the right person.)

In addition to the Commons ID, the NIH also now requires you to establish an ORCID for grant submissions. Information on the ORCID and how to create an account.

Creating a Commons ID

If you have determined you do not have a Commons ID from a previous institution, the first step to creating one is reaching out to someone at your institution who has the appropriate eRA Commons role (SO, AO, AA, BO) to do so. Typically, grants managers and those in your institution’s sponsored programs office can assist with this process.

That individual will create a user ID in eRA Commons that is between 6 and 30 characters and should NOT contain special characters except the @ sign, the hyphen, the period, and the underscore. You may suggest a user ID to your grants manager and they can confirm whether it is available for use.

Once the user ID is created, you will receive an email from eRA Commons asking you to finalize your profile creation. To do so, log in to eRA Commons and complete the “Personal Profile” section, which asks you to enter items such as your name, title, demographic information, and education.

What Role Do I Need?

Now you have your eRA Commons account established and are ready to submit a fellowship application. Contact your grants manager and ask them to add the role of PD/PI to your account as you will be the Principal Investigator of the grant.

Additional Help

If you still have questions about your eRA Commons account, you can call the eRA Service Desk Monday – Friday from 7:00AM to 8:00PM Eastern Time (except for Federal holidays) toll-free at 1-866-504-9552. Alternatively, you can submit a web ticket (the preferred method of contact) at https://grants.nih.gov/support

Additional Resources

What the F? An Introduction to the NRSA Fellowship

What the F? When to Submit a NRSA Fellowship

What the F? Reference Letter vs Letter of Support

What the F? Childcare Costs Now Allowable on NRSA Fellowships

The significance section of an R01 is probably the most misunderstood part of the entire NIH grant. Perhaps this should come as no surprise, as this section has been a bit of a moving target over the past several years. Another source of confusion may be that Webster’s definition of significance and the NIH’s definition are “significantly” different. A brief history lesson may shed some light on why the significance section is a bit murky and will put today’s directives in context.

A brief history of significance

Way back in the dark ages, when getting your NIH review in the mail as a “pink sheet”, the R01 proposal was 25 pages long. Significance was included with background, and given the overall length of the grant, background often expanded into a verbal upchuck of information about the topic at hand. In 2009, the powers that be decided to give the reviewers a break and the 25 page limit was reduced to 12. The background and significance section slimmed down and was intended to highlight key findings rather than review the world’s literature. In 2016, spurred on by the need for public accountability, NIH grants underwent a major overhaul and the significance section had a new set of instructions. Significance was to include the word premise, which was defined by the NIH as “the quality and strength of the prior research used as the basis for the proposed research question or project; this is distinct from the hypothesis or justification.” The significance section was also to describe the strengths and weaknesses of the prior research. Since these initial instructions, the word premise has been dropped and quality and strength of prior research is addressed as, wait for it…., rigor.

Webster defines significance as “the quality of being important”. Investigators must like this definition, as most significance sections that I have read include something about the importance of the work. However, the NIH forgot to check Webster’s, and if you only include statements about the importance of the work your significance section will miss the mark. The NIH assumes success of your specific aims and wants to know “how will your work, successfully carried out, impact the field?”. I put the word successfully in italics, because if your work is founded on weak preliminary data and/or a poor approach, successful completion of aims will not have a major impact on the field.

Significance today

Knowing the evolution of the significance section might explain the potential differences that you’ll see either as a reviewer or in reading examples of successful grants. Now let’s head back to the future. What are reviewers looking for in today’s version? The current significance section looks for impact based on the rigor of prior research.  What is rigor of prior research you ask?  Right from the horse’s orifice of choice, rigor of prior research is defined as “the quality and strength of the research being cited by the applicant as crucial to support the application; this is distinct from the hypothesis or justification.” It’s premise without the word premise.

As part of the rigor of prior research, the applicant is supposed to address the “strengths and weaknesses of the prior research used to support the application and describe how the proposed research will address weaknesses or gaps identified by the applicant. This may include the applicant’s own preliminary data, data published by the applicant, or data published by others.” Here is your opportunity to discuss the strengths of your preliminary data (for an R01) or published data (R21, R03) that are the foundation of your hypothesis. The weaknesses you will, of course, be addressing in the grant.

Structuring your significance section

Although the exact order isn’t critical, the elements described above must be included in your significance section. I suggest starting with a brief paragraph restating the critical need your proposal addresses and how successful completion of your proposal will change the field. Remember, this is the NIH definition of significance. If you have a surprising statistic that supports the need here’s the spot.  In the next paragraph restate the hypothesis, followed by the strengths of your key supporting data. I don’t think it’s over the top to include a sub-header entitled “Rigor of prior research”.  It’s hard for a reviewer to claim this wasn’t addressed when you have it written as a separate section.  From there you discuss the weaknesses, which prepares the reviewer for the approach section where they will be addressed.

Here’s an example of a significance section, which is taken from a proposal using e-yarn as a way to detect lost socks. This example highlights my approach, but as the saying goes, there are many ways to skin a significance section.

Socks are the number one lost laundry item in the United States. Every household is, at some point, plagued by the problem of lost socks. Lost socks generate substantial psychological and financial burdens on many households, which escalate exponentially in families with 8 feet or more. Last year alone, replacement costs for lost socks reached 1.2 million dollars, and this cost is on the rise. Experts from the Simpson Family Foundation, a think tank focused on family issues, project that by 2040 the problem of lost socks will surpass health care as the number one drain on family budgets. New ways to find lost socks must be found now to avert this future financial catastrophe.

Rigor of prior research: We hypothesize that socks made with e-yarn will be detectable within an average size US home (2000 sq feet) using a barcode cell phone application. This hypothesis is built on strong data demonstrating that detectability of e-yarn is resistant to dye (Figure 1), water (Figure 2), and that 1 g of e-yarn is currently detectable up to 2000 feet (Figure 3). Based on these data, the proposal that follows will develop a unique, cost effective way to find lost socks. Successful completion of this proposal will represent a significant step towards eliminating the financial and psychological burden of lost socks. A side benefit of this approach is that, if desired, family members with similar sized feet can identify their own socks. Finally, this technology can be applied to other problematic clothing items such as cufflinks and earrings.

This proposal will address the following weaknesses in preliminary and published data. Our preliminary data shows that 1 g of e-yarn is detectable by RFID up to 2000 feet. However, we have not yet tested smaller amounts of e-yarn. Since it is not cost effective to make an entire sock of e-yarn, we will determine the smallest amount of e-yarn that can be woven into a sock and remain detectable. This question will be addressed in Aim I.

Many studies have taken a compensatory approach to the problem of lost socks rather than finding the sock itself, which is the goal of this proposal. Some studies, for example, suggest that purchasing a 6 pack of socks can address the lost sock problem.^2-5 However, these studies have only used white athletic socks and do not take into account more expensive dress socks. Another approach, reported by Hanes, et al, was to wear mismatched socks.⁶ However, their study was limited to 15-25 year olds, who have been shown to enjoy wearing mismatched socks.^7-9 A similar approach, wearing only one sock, was supported by findings of Scholl, et al.¹⁰ However, this study involved a more sedentary population. When tested in a younger, more active population, Adidas et al found that the one sock approach was not feasible due to foot sores and odor, particularly when studied in student athletes traveling together on buses.^11,12

As outlined above, this example starts with a restatement of the problem, adding a little more detail than what was presented on the specific aims page. From there, I restate the hypothesis, so that it is fresh in the mind of the reviewer as he/she goes on read the key data supporting your hypothesis. These key data are the “strength” of the strength and weaknesses of supporting data. Make sure that you demonstrate the strength of your data with figure legends that support rigor and reproducibility (positive and negative controls, statistics, numbers of replicates and experiments/animals, etc). After listing the key supporting data, I describe what will happen upon successful completion of the proposal. Because this section focuses on the proposal, rather than the problem, the successful completion part flows nicely from here. I then finish by discussing the weaknesses/gaps that will be addressed.

Where’s the background?

Since the NIH got rid of the “background and significance” section it’s dealer’s choice as to where to the background. Do you even need a background section and if so, how much? Yes, you need some background information. I think of background as a “need to know” section. Include what the reviewer needs to know so that he/she understands your work and its context. Some investigators still put this information in the significance section, and others put it at the beginning of the approach. I do not recommend putting your background with the significance, because you risk reviewers missing the information the NIH asks for (and you are scored on) by getting caught up in background details.

If nothing else, remember that the significance is the impact of your proposal, if completed successfully, on the field. Reviewers are instructed to score grants with this idea in mind. Now time to do some laundry.

Additional Resources
Sell Your Specific Aims Using the PASTOR Method
Avoiding Barriers Between Your Work and Your Reviewer
Your Grant as Story – the Rogue Character

Communicating to the reviewers your ability to succeed in science and the support you have around you to make that happen is a crucial component of a fellowship application. Often, your mentors, collaborators, or course instructors convey this via reference letters or letters of support. But what is the difference and how do you determine who to ask to write each type of letter?

Reference Letters

NRSA fellowship applications must include at least 3, but no more than 5, reference letters. Those asked to serve as a referee should be able to speak to your qualifications and potential to be a successful scientist as well as to the training program that will guide you to that goal. You may want to consider asking previous research mentors, current collaborators not listed as senior/key personnel in the application, or course instructors to write a letter. The mentor/co-mentor(s) listed in the application may not submit reference letters. They share their commentary on your qualifications, abilities, training, and future plans in the Sponsor/Co-Sponsor statement. In addition, any other senior/key personnel listed in the application may not serve as a reference.

Once you have developed a list of 3-5 reference letter writers, reach out to those individuals to ask them to write on your behalf 6-8 weeks prior to the application due date—earlier if possible. Once a referee agrees to write, send instructions on how to submit the letters, which are submitted directly to the NIH. In the instructions, you will need to provide your name as it appears in Commons, eRA username, and the number of the Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) to which you are applying.  It is helpful to also include specific highlights you would like the writer to focus on regarding your abilities, potential, and training as a scientist. Providing an updated version of your biosketch or CV is helpful. Additionally, you could offer to write a draft of the letter. In that instance, be sure to leave humility at the door and boast about your accomplishments and abilities. Also, make sure each letter you write has a slightly different voice to it so they don’t seem like they were all written by the same person.

Applicants are not able to view reference letters but will receive an email and/or be able to log-in to the eRA Commons system to confirm each letter has been received. The list of reference letter writers should be listed in your cover letter with the writers’ names, titles, and affiliated departments and institutions included.

*Helpful Tip* Make sure the referees have the correct FOA. Fellowship FOAs update on an almost annual basis. It is helpful to confirm you still have the correct FOA a week or so prior to submission as there may have been an updated FOA released since you originally reached out to your letter writers. If a new FOA has been announced for the application cycle to which you are applying, you will need to update your referees. Without the correct FOA, submitted letters will not be associated with your application in eRA Commons. If letters are submitted under the wrong FOA, the eRA Commons help desk can assist in associating the letter with the correct FOA/application as long as the letter was submitted on time.

For additional guidance on reference letters, visit the NIH Reference Letter webpage.

Letters of Support

According to the NIH fellowship instructions (Forms F), letters of support should be submitted by those collaborators, consultants, or advisors who plan to contribute to the scientific development of the applicant or contribute in the execution of the applicant’s planned project and research training. A collaborator in a neighboring lab or at another institution, the director of a core institutional resource that will be used (i.e., mouse facility or biobank), or a scientist who may train you on a specific technique are examples of those you  may want to request a letter of support from. The letter should include specific details on how the individual (or resource) will contribute to your project and/or training. It is often helpful and expedites the process if you draft the initial letter.

Letters of support are not a required component of an NRSA fellowship application. However, those who do plan to submit them may include up to 6 pages of letters of support which are compiled into one PDF and uploaded as a single application component.

Those planning a career in academia will continue to draft these types of letters for their future K, R, and a multitude of other grants, so no better time than now to get comfortable with the distinction between the two and how to write each. Best of luck!

Additional References from NIH

Difference Between Reference Letters and Letters of Support

NIAID Overview of Letters of Support

NIAID Overview of Reference Letters

“All About Grants” Podcast: Letters of Support

In a previous “What the F?” post, I discussed the NRSA fellowship and why you should consider writing one. The next step in the fellowship application process is to decide when to apply. The usual answer is “as soon as possible”. The NIH wants to support your training, so it is best to apply as early in your training as you can. But what factors determine the best time for you?

Do I Need All the Data?

Applicants often worry that they need to be an expert in their area of research and have a mountain of data before they can apply. However, NRSA fellowships are designed to support your training as a scientist, not the science itself. Good science does need to be presented, but the training plan is the most important factor when reviewing fellowship applications. Reviewers should be confident that you have a basic understanding of your science and what question(s) you are trying to answer, but you need not be an expert on the topic prior to submitting. That’s what the training is for! When submitting a fellowship application, it is okay, and often expected, that you will use data and/or findings from a current or former lab mate’s work. Just be sure to give credit to the team.

When are Applications Accepted?

What else goes into determining when to begin the application process? NIH due dates are a great first start. Fellowship applications have three submission cycles with standard due dates on the 8^th of April, August, and December. After submission, it takes an NIH institute 5-9 months to review an application and announce whether or not it will be funded (see table below). So, if you want your funding to start April 1^st of next year, you must submit your application nine months prior on August 8^th of this year.

How Much Time for Writing?

In addition to the 5 – 9 months needed for NIH review, you need to determine how much time to allocate to the writing process. In my experience, it takes an applicant 3-6 months to gather the information required to write, review, and edit a well-thought-out application.  Questions to consider when determining how much time to schedule for writing include:

• What amount of time do coursework and research take in my week?
• Are there other regular commitments I need to devote time to such as lab meetings, journal clubs, etc.?
• Does my lab, collaborator, and/or institution have descriptive text available on equipment, facilities, animal use, etc. or do I need to create original text?
• How available is my PI (and collaborators) to provide feedback and edits? How far in advance do they need a draft to provide comments? How much time do I need to make the recommended edits?
• How much time do those I’d like to ask to write letters of recommendation need to do so? [Voice of Experience: Ask them at least 3 months in advance.]

When the 5-9 months it takes for the NIH to process a Notice of Award is added to the 3-6 months to write, you’ll find you need to begin writing a fellowship application 8-15 months prior to when you would like your fellowship funding support to begin (see graphic below). That is, of course, if your initial application is funded, which is never guaranteed.

How Do I Develop a Timeline?

I find it helps to start at the end and work backwards. In an ideal world, when would you want this funding to begin? It’s helpful to consider what funding sources are currently available to you. Are you on a training grant that ends in 10 months? Does your PI have dedicated funding on a research grant that must be expensed over the next 20 months? Once you determine that ideal start date and how much time you need to write, work backwards 8-15 months and that is when you should target starting your application.

Finally, here are a few additional unique items each population of biomedical trainees (doctoral candidates, dual degree students, and postdoctoral fellows) might also want to consider.

Doctoral Students

• F31 and F31-Diversity guidelines require that a doctoral student have passed their qualifying exam prior to when funding begins. You may submit prior to completing your qualifying exam, but you must have completed and passed it prior to beginning your award.
• Does your graduate program offer a grant writing course that will help guide you in the process? If yes, you may want to plan your submission date for after completion of this course.
• Doctoral students are eligible for up to 5 years of NRSA support, which is cumulative of time appointed to NRSA funded training grants (typically T32) and support from an individual fellowship. Does your institution/program typically fund a portion of your training via a T32 appointment? Does that impact when the ideal time for you to apply is?

MD/PhD (and other dual-degree seeking) Students

• F30 (Institution with MSTP  or Institution without MSTP) guidelines require that MD/PhD students must apply within 48 months of matriculation to their dual-degree program. This is 48 months from the start date (typically orientation) of the earlier of the MD/PhD or MD program, if on different schedules. This policy may be slightly different for other dual degree programs (i.e. AUD/PhD, DDS/PhD, etc.).
• F30 guidelines also stipulate that at least 50% of time on fellowship support must be for training during the graduate years. If you are in a 2-4-2 program and would like the final two years of medical school training supported by your fellowship, you would need to apply no later than the first semester of your second year of graduate school so that funding could begin in your third year (remember the 8-15 months we discussed above to turn a grant around).
• Dual degree students are eligible for up to 6 years of NRSA funding, cumulative of NRSA T32 and fellowship support. The layout of your program may dictate the best time to apply and/or the number of years of support to request.

Postdoctoral Trainees

• For postdoctoral trainees, the answer to when to apply is simple. Now. The NRSA provides three years of funding for postdoc training, cumulative of both time you have been appointed to a T32 institutional training grant as a post-doc and time funded by your F32 postdoctoral fellowship. [Quick tip: The cumulative amount of time appointed to a NRSA funding source restarts after completion of pre-doc training.] On average a postdoc experience is 4-5 years and as stated above, it takes 8-15 months to write, submit and receive funding, so you will want to start writing as soon as possible in order to maximize the amount of funding available to you.
• A question to consider as a postdoc is when to submit your K-award post-F32 submission. Check out these blogs for more information on that topic.
  • https://edgeforscholars.org/wish-id-known-wrote-k/
  • https://edgeforscholars.org/designing-your-career/
  • https://edgeforscholars.org/using-timelines-to-diagnose-problems-in-career-planning/

In fiscal year 2020, NIH awarded approximately $180 million to support pre- and postdoctoral trainees through its National Research Service Awards (NRSA) individual fellowship programs.

What exactly is an NRSA individual fellowship and why should you apply for one? I’ve managed predoctoral fellowships for five years and have advised dozens of students at an R1 university with their submissions. Here’s an overview of these awards and my suggestions for why you should apply for one.

Fellowship awards provide financial support to students enrolled in doctoral programs and those who have recently graduated with a doctoral degree (PhD, MD, PharmD, DDS, etc.) who decide to further their scientific training through a mentored opportunity with a faculty sponsor in order to pursue an independent research career in academia.

NRSAs typically include funding for tuition, a stipend (living expenses), and an institutional allowance, which is often used to cover the costs of health insurance, student fees, travel to scientific conferences, and/or conducting research.

The NIH offers a variety of fellowship awards, but this post focuses on those intended for the singular pre- or postdoctoral experience. Those opportunities include the F30, F31, F31-Diversity, and F32.

NRSA Individual Fellowships for pre- and postdoctoral trainees

Click image for the funding announcements of NRSA fellowships

NRSA fellowships support the unique training pathway of an individual trainee. Unlike R01s or similar research grants awarded based on scientific merit, fellowship awards value the training plan as much as, if not more than, the scientific merit of a trainee’s research project. Good science needs to be presented, but a thoughtful and intentional training proposal that highlights your plans to engage in educational, professional, and scientific training activities is essential. A commitment from your mentor and institution stating how they will support your training is also required.

Some individuals apply for fellowships because the financial support is critical to them being able to complete their training. However, if you are in a fortunate situation where your training experience is fully funded by your mentor and/or training program, there are still benefits to applying for an individual fellowship.

Becoming an independent researcher means submitting grants. Lots of them. All the time. Writing a fellowship provides you with your first opportunity to learn how to read a funding announcement, pace your writing, write persuasively, and gather and incorporate feedback.

If you’re new to your research project (and if you’re a grad student or postdoc, you probably are), writing a fellowship application gives you the opportunity to read up on the background, synthesize the existing knowledge with your current work, and share where your preliminary data may lead. Even if your application doesn’t succeed, the process of writing it will lead to a better understanding of your science.

This is also an opportunity to refine your career goals and determine the additional training needed to obtain them. This may lead to a discussion with your mentor about what opportunities they are willing to support. How much time are they willing to let you be away from the lab to participate in career development training? Does your mentor have funds available for you to travel to professional conferences? How and where can your mentor provide you with networking opportunities?

Submitting a fellowship may be your first opportunity to develop a relationship with a Program Officer (PO) and/or Grants Management Specialist (GMS) at the NIH. A GMS once told me that they want to build relationships with trainees so they can invest in them and their science and, hopefully, follow them into their K and R01 funding.

If your fellowship isn’t funded, it’s an opportunity for you to gather feedback on your science and refine your writing style in a resubmission or in future grants. You can still list it on your CV to let future employers know you took the initiative to seek funding and gained skills in grant writing.

Prior success often indicates future success, and if your fellowship is awarded, it is a first step in demonstrating you can write an effective NIH grant application. Now go determine which opportunity best supports your training and start writing. Good luck!

More Resources

What the F? Reference Letter vs Letter of Support

What the F? Deciding When to Submit an NRSA Fellowship

What the F? Creating a Commons ID

What the F?: Childcare Costs Now Allowable

What the F? Advice for fellowship applicants from reviewers. Part 1

What the F? Advice for fellowship applicants from reviewers. Part 2

What the F? Advice for fellowship applicants from reviewers. Part 3