You’d better like where you’re going…

Faculty Life / Trainees

You’d better like where you’re going because you’ll be there for a long time. 

In my roles as attending physician, scientist, mentor, and director of an institutional career development office, I spend a lot of time talking to students, trainees, and early career scientists and physicians. Each conversation challenges me to reflect on my own journey, noting parallels and departures. As I progress in my career and find myself on the brink of being a “senior” faculty member (the horror!), these reflections have uncovered a truth about adulthood – it’s long.  

Yes, I am a rising senior who has been working as a physician scientist for 20 years. In some ways, I feel like I am just getting started. New students, innovative ideas, unexpected collaborations, exciting findings, keep the job fresh while a growing manuscript portfolio, lengthening list of “not discussed” proposals on ERA Commons, and ever stronger reading glasses remind me that I’ve been at this for a while.  

In the last year or so I’ve started to notice an underlying current of urgency in career development conversations I’ve had. Aspiring and early career scientists and physicians are anxious to get where they are going, and for good reason. It does take a very long time to become a scientist or physician. I added it up for my kids the other day when they asked me how many years of “school” I had. Four years of college, four years of medical school, three years of residency, three years of fellowship, before finally becoming an Instructor (an “almost faculty” position). I felt old by the time I finished.  

Trainees and Early Career faculty I talk to are loathe to add more years to that training. And I was too. So often I hear, “The opportunity sounds good, but I really don’t want to do another year of training,” or “I’ve been training forever, I’m ready to be done!” But what I’m realizing now with the benefit of 20 years of hindsight and hopefully another 20-30 years (fingers crossed) ahead of me, is that training is short in relation to the rest of it. You don’t want to sabotage the long game by conceding to short term pressures.  

All my years of training helped me to land in a career that I thoroughly enjoy. One that is different every day. One that continually challenges and excites me. In order to get where I am today, I had to take that long path.  

I do fully acknowledge that financial, family, or other responsibilities often dictate timing, but that doesn’t change the basic fact that you will be doing your “real” job for an awfully long time, so you’d better enjoy it. I’ve wondered where I would be today if I had tried to rush things. Maybe in a place that was not so fulfilling.  

If you are a student, trainee, or early career physician or scientist and find that you are saying to yourself, “I just want to be done and get to [insert job here]!”. I’d encourage you to take a moment and ask yourself, “What are you running towards?” 

Awesome Things About Life in Research

Doing Research / Faculty Life / Trainees

Building a list of awesome things that come with life in research, one quirky, funny, inspiring piece at a time. Missing your favorite awesomeness? Or have The perfect image? Add in comments or tweet @edgeforscholars to share your personal twist on why science rocks. #JoyOfScience

142. Having your NIH Program Officer say, “I am cautiously optimistic about funding your application.”

141. Meeting new incredibly smart people

140. My hypothesis was right

139. p<.05

138. The code runs with no errors!

137. When you actually learn something new

136. Getting to hear about others knowledge

135. Implementing evidence-based practice

134. Collaborating with amazing students who then become amazing friends

133. Seeing your mentees present at the Translational Research Forum

132. My RN6 colleagues/friends

131. Groundbreaking results

130. When your hypothesis was right

129. Learning the coolest stuff first

128. Developing new research ideas from clinical observations

127. Near peer mentoring

126. Training the next generation

125. Adding a new study site

124. Making new collaborations

123. Vortex machines

122. Talking to smart people all the time

121. Mentoring

120. Watching students & trainees develop & succeed

119. Assays (like ELISA’s) that change color

118. Working with smart trainees

117. Traveling the world in the name of science

116. Building a research team

115. Being on the cutting edge of discovery

114. Seeing the innovation of new researchers

113. The excitement of new findings

112. When the code has no bugs

111. When the data definitively disproves your hypothesis in a new and interesting way

110. Being surrounded by amazing minds

109. Watching participants grow up & change

108. Solving interesting problems with smart people

107. Putting complex data into human communication

106. Understanding the complex web of factors affecting the outcome

105. Answering the big question and getting answers

104. Spending my life’s work pursuing something other than the bottom line in a society that is solely obsessed with the bottom line what’s more punk than publicly funded science?

103. Having your NIH Program Officer say, “I am cautiously optimistic about funding your application”

102. Coming up with crazy ideas with my friends and then actually getting them funded!

101. Making a difference for people and advancing care/improving outcomes

100. Vortexing

99. Working with trainees/students

98. Travel!!

97. I get paid to read and think about cool stuff

96. I’m my own boss

95. Pipetting is fun

94. Things change color

93. Holiday gift baskets in the break room

92. Lab holiday spirit

91. Funny tweets from serious scientists

90. Uploading grades at the end of the course

89. Discussing a new project with a person who challenges the way I think

88. Embracing the unpredictable

87. Having the exact number of pipette tips left that you need

86. Using lasers as light sabers

85. Mice don’t page you at 3 AM

84. Flexible time

83. Mother Nature telling you a secret before anyone else

82. Community that comes to the rescue

81. Dry ice in Eppendorf tubes

80. Collaborations

79. It is the most rewarding job

78. Having the whole lab to yourself

77. Hearing patient perspectives

76. Getting paid to ask ‘why?’

75. New & immediately useful info in journal club

74. End of a semester

73. Start of a semester

72. Having lab animals in my life

71. Reward for being ADHD

70. Chairs who go to bat for faculty

69. NIH supplements

68. Congratulations from a distant colleague

Spontaneous science nerd discussions over lunch.

67. Spontaneous science nerd discussions over lunch

66. JIT requests

65. Media coverage that gets it right

64. Perfectionist biostatisticians

63. Travel funds

62. Color coding OCD is normal

61. Upgrade of computing power

60. Invitation to serve on grant review panel

59. Seeing the twinkle of understanding in a student’s eyes

58. (Safe) lab pranks…dry ice in eppendorf tube under you labmate’s chair

57. Genuine breakthroughs

56. Your own brand-new lab equipment

55. Your first student’s first publication

54. Desk copies of textbooks

53. Cures

52. Labs that believe in parties

51. Reviewing an amazing and well-written paper

50. Academic kindness

49. Upbeat program officers

48. New knock out/in created in record time

Cat-o-meter via @icedarkroast47. Science communication

46. Science advocacy

45. Congratulations on your science received in public

44. New data visualization tools

43. Playing with the infrared thermometer.

42. Catching up with old lab buddies at meetings.

41. Coming home inspired.

40. Going to scientific meetings.

39. Fellow post docs starting their own labs.

38. Science & umbrella drinks (aka destination conferences)

37. Anticipation before settling down to analyze data set. Christmas for adults!

36. Minor revisions to resubmit

35. Gorgeous results from immunofluorescence assays

34. Finding your ‘invisible’ splinter under the microscope

33. Getting to draw on the windows

32. Dunkin Donuts naming scientists #1 consumers of coffee

31. Cold room on a sweltering day

30. Celebration stickers for lab notebooks when folks crush their experiments

29. Fact that scientists actively rebel against meetings

28. Dancing and pipetting with headphones

27. Seeing science in everything

26. Joys of liquid nitrogen and latex gloves

25. Being in charge of my own schedule (and not just because I don’t have an assistant).

24. Celebrating null findings

23. Finishing the last analysis for a paper

22. NOGAs

21. A tweet about your recently published paper

20. Running with slides

19. On time participant who holds their breath for their MRI

18. Permission to ask incessant questions

17. Curing cancer in mice

16. Mass spec works for seven days straight

15. Big donor (where are these?)

14. Grant funding

13. Confirming the drug binds the target in humans

12. Drying my shoes in a dessicator

11. Creating science fiction tools in real life

10. Statistical significance

9. Unlimited access to dry ice

8. Free lunch/dinners with strangers (aka applicants)

7. Working outside in the sunshine

6. Isoflurane contact high

5. Quoting your favorite science tweeps

4. The fume hood is free

3. Seeing the microscopic world

2. The model converges

1. Zillion uses for Parafil

Tools for Making Progress in Academic Life

Productivity / Trainees

This post is particularly focused for the population I work with – graduate students and postdocs – but can be helpful for any stage of an academic career – whether as the person struggling or someone trying to help them.

Academia attracts bright, ambitious high achievers capable of great work.  But graduate school and postdoc positions can challenge a person in ways to which they are not accustomed.  Large swaths of unstructured time, unending projects with no instruction manual while also learning how best to establish, maintain and grow working relationships with faculty and colleagues.  As Vanderbilt University Graduate School’s Academic Life Coach, I have been working with graduate students and postdocs through a host of concerns for the past three years.  I would like to share some of the things I have learned with you in hopes that you will find it helpful in your own journey.  

“I feel stuck!”

This is a common refrain I hear from graduate students and postdocs alike.  Through our coaching conversations, we usually find that incorrect goal setting, not tracking actual progress and self-criticism are interfering with the ability to establish progress and build momentum. A likely culprit can be found in perfectionism (“fear of failure”), which can contribute to procrastination.  This is such a common issue that it has a name: The Perfectionism-Procrastination Cycle. (Google it… you’ll see!)

You need to find a new way of making progress.  The bad news is that perfectionism, like its relative Imposter Syndrome, never really goes away.  The good news, however, is that once you learn to recognize it, you can start to establish ways of managing it and re-employ those techniques every time it returns to derail your progress.  

The prescription for such an ailment includes some of the hardest things for perfectionists:

    • set SMART (read: small!) goals
    • short, focused work sessions (try the Pomodoro technique and turn off all notifications on phone and computer – these distractions are commonly used as procrastination techniques)
    • track progress and celebrate wins – cross off those small goals on your list to show progress and build momentum
    • practice self-compassion negativity leads to lower productivity!
    • share your work (early and often) and get feedback
    • establish accountability partnerships

I hope to share more tidbits in the coming months on common topics like  the importance of mindset and self-compassion, navigating academic relationships and managing up.  Let me know if you have questions or concerns you think would be good to include.  You can reach me at stacey.satchell@vanderbilt.edu.

More Resources:

The Best of You

Finding Your Science Flow: Yoga Lessons to Increase Productivity!

Professional Success in Social Media

Acting on the Essential

 

Perfection is a Productivity Blocker

Doing Research / Networking & Collaboration / Trainees

I recently attended the Edge for Scholars Retreat: Building Collaborations, Creating Connections and learned so much about connecting with others throughout an academic career. Meeting new people at a similar career stage and getting advice from those who have gone before us made for an invigorating and inspiring day.

A piece of advice that was shared during a roundtable discussion really stuck with me: Learn where your B+ work is okay. *Skrrrt* Wait, what? I am an A+ student. A high achiever. A…perfectionist. How could I possibly produce less than THE BEST?

While I am of course exaggerating (kind of), this advice got me thinking about how often my colleagues and I do struggle with perfectionism. Scientists are generally high achievers and producing anything less than our best might feel like failing. However, perfectionism is often a barrier to progress. So, how can we be okay with our B+ work sometimes? Some things to keep in mind:

  1. Perfection is impossible. I know, I know. Everyone knows this. But do you truly believe and accept it? Even if perfection was theoretically possible, would you ever actually believe you reached it? I suspect if your expectations were reached, you would probably just raise your expectations further. Besides, everyone’s definition of perfection is different anyway.
  2. Perfection makes us less relatable. Showing others your flaws takes pressure off of them to feel like they have to be perfect. Especially in mentoring, we owe it to our mentees to show them that we make mistakes, too. This also makes us more approachable and takes away the fear of backlash when our trainees make mistakes. Furthermore, we each have a desire to be loved for who we are. I don’t know about you, but I don’t want to constantly wonder if people like the real me or just the “perfect” version of myself I allow others to see.
  3. Perfection blocks growth. Progress and process are just as important as the outcome. Taking risks and trying new things and failing at them is how we learn. Of course, we should strive to do good work, but waiting for it to be perfect before we share it with others can be a huge waste of time. The best example I can think of for this is scientific writing. Don’t wait for your draft to be perfect before you share it with a colleague or mentor for feedback! Involving others early and often can help you develop your skills more quickly and expend less mental and emotional energy you can use toward other things. I promise they won’t think you’re dumb.
  4. Perfection blocks opportunities. Perfectionism often grows out of a desire for control. By trying to control everything, you might take away opportunities from others, blind yourself to alternative ideas and perspectives, or have unrealistic expectations for yourself and those around you. Scientific advancement requires diverse backgrounds, ideas, and skillsets. Letting go of our original “perfect” plan makes way for better plans to arise that we hadn’t yet thought of.

We probably shouldn’t have needed a global pandemic to teach us that disruptions and interruptions are a part of life and that we just can’t control everything, but some of us are slow learners when it comes to perfectionist tendencies (hi there!). It is a process to learn how and when to let things go, but a necessary one. As we begin to learn where our B+ work is okay, we will improve our well-being, time management, and yes, our productivity.

Connecting Through Poster Sessions

Communication / Doing Research / Networking & Collaboration / Trainees

Imagine you’re at a poster session. As you walk by the posters, you instantly understand the key points and ‘get’ the research. You find yourself stopping, reading, engaging with the presenter, and you’re inspired to think more broadly about your own work. Posters designed with the audience experience in mind create engaging sessions leading to new connections and collaborations.

Christine Kimpel’s better poster design (image by Helen Bird)

That poster I noticed? The judges noticed it too and it won third place at Vanderbilt Translational Research Forum and a travel grant to Translational Science 2022.

I reached out to Christine Kimpel BSN, RN, MA, PhD(c), whose poster inspired me, and Caroline Taylor, Sr. Graphic Design/Multimedia Specialist for Vanderbilt University School of Nursing, who collaborated on the design of Christine’s poster, to share their insights with Edge for Scholars.

.

11 Quick Design Tips to Instantly Improve Your Poster

  1. Write clearly and concisely.
  2. Use bullet points and numbered lists to break up full sentences and paragraphs.
  3. Make each section shorter than a paragraph.
  4. Avoid big words in your title.
  5. Choose a sans serif font.
  6. Use the same font for the titles and body text. Make title font bigger and bolder.
  7. Format titles the same. Format body text the same.
  8. Left align text.
  9. Use 3 colors or less. Choose one of these colors to be the main color.
  10. Add images to break up a text heavy poster.
  11. Ask a colleague in a different field to give feedback.

.

Better Poster Design

The Better Poster is designed to maximize insight, encourage conversation, and make it easy to quickly understand the research.

Better Poster Template (image by Mike Morrison)

The main finding, or key takeaway, is written in plain language and placed front and center. It is 12-15 words and easily read from 10 feet away. On the left is an overview of the study and to the right are the findings. A QR code links to more information.

Mike Morrison designed the new poster format and encourages presenters to adapt the template for their own needs, while keeping the poster clean, concise, and easy to read.

.

Newbie Strategies for Starting a Poster

  • Start 3-4 months before you need to print the poster.
  • Check the conference guidelines for required poster sections and size.
  • Know the resources at your institution (graphic design, poster printing, etc.) and contact early.
  • Work on the text a little bit and then leave it for a few days to get perspective.
  • The results and discussion sections take the most time and thought.
  • Posters are not read from start to finish. Each element should be understandable in any order.
  • Discuss the best way to show results with your research team.
  • Give your research team 2 weeks to review the poster. A call is helpful to hammer out the details.
  • Be mindful of time and how long it takes to print the poster.

.

Steps for Creating a Poster in PowerPoint

Use PowerPoint Designer and SmartArt to convert text to graphics, icons, and charts. (image)

  • Write the text first.
  • Change the PowerPoint slide to the actual size of the poster.
  • Use separate text boxes for each section. Left align text.
  • Copy the text info into the poster. Does it look chaotic?
  • Eliminate unnecessary words and cut the text down until it will easily fit on the slide.
  • Use bullet points to break up paragraphs and create space.
  • Zoom to 100% in PowerPoint. If you can’t read the text, your audience won’t be able to either.
  • Use PowerPoint Designer and SmartArt to convert text to graphics, icons, and charts.
  • Design your poster on a main slide, but have other slides open to work on different elements.
  • Put image credit directly under image, even if you use a free site.

.

Resources

Research Poster Best Practices

Better Poster Templates

Create a Better Research Poster

#betterposter

Select a Color Theme

Copyright Free Images (Unsplash is an Edge for Scholars favorite)

Free Icons

Free QR Code Generator

Poster Accessibility for People with Disabilities

.

Books

Better Posters: Plan, Design and Present an Academic Poster by Zen Faulkes

Effective Data Visualization: The Right Chart for the Right Data by Stephanie Evergreen

The Wall Street Journal Guide to Information Graphics: The Dos and Don’ts of Presenting Data, Facts, and Figures by Dona Wong

.

Thank you to Christine Kimpel and Caroline Taylor for sharing their expert knowledge with Edge for Scholars.

Christine Kimpel is a Registered Nurse, a PhD Candidate at the Vanderbilt University School of Nursing, and a first year Fellow in the VA Quality Scholars Program. Her clinical experiences with Palliative Care spurred her interest to explore determinants of Advance Care Planning. She earned her BSN (cum laude) and MA degrees from Kent State University. Her dissertation research focuses on identifying Age-Friendly Environment factors of Advance Care Planning among low-income, older adults. She plans to develop this program of research around the use of community-based participatory research approaches to reduce Advance Care Planning and Palliative Care inequities. Christine serves on the board of the Middle Tennessee Chapter of the Hospice and Palliative Nurses Association. Additionally, she is a member of the Iota at-Large chapter of Sigma Theta Tau and the Tennessee Nurses Association. At the VA, she is collaborating on the deployment of a quality metrics dashboard.

Caroline Taylor is a Sr. Graphic Designer / Multimedia Specialist for Vanderbilt University School of Nursing. There, she specializes in creating visual marketing objectives that best benefit the school, as well as faculty and staff. Her research poster designs have been featured by VUSN’s faculty, winning nationally ranked awards.

Christine Kimpel BSN, RN, MA, PhD(c) won third place at Vanderbilt Translational Research Forum.

 

Further Reading from Edge for Scholars

Best Poster Resources for Trainees

The Newbie’s Excellent Infographic Adventure

PowerPoint Hacks for Scientific Poster Design

Making a Better Research Poster

Networking for People Who Hate Networking: A Field Guide for Introverts, the Overwhelmed, and the Underconnected

What the F?: Childcare Costs Allowed on Fellowships & Training Grants

Grants & Funding / Trainees

The NIH has recognized how the high cost of childcare can create roadblocks for graduate students and postdocs on the way to completing their training. In order to help alleviate some of this burden, the agency announced that as of FY22 full time pre-doc and postdoc trainees supported either by NRSA fellowships (NT-OD-21-074) or training grants (NT-OD-21-177) may request up to $2,500 annually to defray childcare costs.

ELIGIBILITY

An NRSA fellow or trainee is eligible to receive $2,500 per budget period for costs for childcare provided by a licensed childcare provider. If both parents are NRSA fellows, each parent is eligible to receive $2,500. (Each individual may receive $2500 maximum regardless of the number of children.) The costs are allowed for dependent children under 13 living in the parent’s home, or disabled children under 18. The funds do not apply for costs associated with eldercare or for care of non-dependent children.

POLICY DETAILS

The individual receiving funds for childcare must keep, and provide to NIH if requested, all documentation of related expenses and proof that the childcare provider is licensed. These costs are not tied to payback obligations.

HOW TO APPLY (FELLOWSHIPS)

So how do you request these funds? Fellows can request funds by submitting a new application, renewal (progress report), or administrative supplement. Below are highlighted instructions for each. And don’t fret. Reach out to your institutional grant administrator with any questions you may have or for assistance in submitting a request. They will be able to guide you.

New Applications

Request via field 28b on the PHS Fellowship Supplemental Form for the first year using the information below.

  • Enter $2,500 for the Amount
  • Enter 12 for the Number of Months
  • Enter ‘Childcare Costs’ (without quotation marks) as the Type
  • Enter NIH as the Source.

For additional years, request the funds by including an “Other Attachment” document titled “Childcare_Cost_Request.pdf” (without quotation marks) on the R&R Other Project Information Form. The attachment must indicate the numbers of years and childcare cost amounts being requested. Applicants are not required to submit supporting documentation.

 Renewal

Current fellows may request childcare costs for future years via the Research Performance Progress Report (RPPR). In Section G.1 of the RPPR, fellows should upload a PDF titled “Childcare_Cost_Request.pdf” (without quotation marks). The attachment must indicate the numbers of years and childcare cost amounts being requested. Applicants are not required to submit supporting documentation.

Administrative Supplements

A fellow does not have to wait until their RPPR is due to submit a request for childcare cost support. Notice of Special Interest NOT-OD-21-070 allows current fellows to request an administrative supplement using the forms package with the Competition ID containing “ADMINSUPP-FELLOWSHIP”. The process follows the same instructions as a new application.

The request for the first year is made by entering the information below in field 28b on the PHS Fellowship Supplemental Form.

  • Enter $2,500 for the Amount
  • Enter 12 for the Number of Months
  • Enter ‘Childcare Costs’ (without quotation marks) as the Type
  • Enter NIH as the Source.

For additional years, applicants should request the funds by including an “Other Attachment” document titled “Childcare_Cost_Request.pdf” (without quotation marks) on the R&R Other Project Information Form. The attachment must indicate the numbers of years and childcare cost amounts being requested. Applicants are not required to submit supporting documentation.

HOW TO APPLY (TRAINING GRANTS)

The process for NRSA training grants (T32, TL1, TU2 and T90) to receive funds is much simpler. Childcare costs will automatically be provided to new, renewal and continuing applications awarded in FY22 based on the number of trainee slots awarded, unless otherwise noted on the notice of award. With the submission of the annual progress report, recipients must upload an attachment specifying the number of trainees who used childcare costs in the reporting period. Update are being made to move this this process to xTrain in the future. A final note. Unused funds may not be rebudgeted.

FAQs

For additional information on this funding support, visit the NIH’s Frequently Asked Questions website on this topic.

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? Reference Letter vs Letter of Support

Grants & Funding / Trainees

writingCommunicating 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.

supportLetters 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

An International Postdoc Experience

Trainees

Edge for Scholars recently had the honor of discussing international postdoctoral experiences with Dr. Brian Mautz, Postdoctoral Fellow with the Division of Epidemiology at Vanderbilt University Medical Center (VUMC). Prior to coming to VUMC, Dr. Mautz spent two years at the University of Ottawa in Canada and three years at Uppsala University in Sweden as a postdoctoral fellow/intern and researcher, respectively. He received his PhD in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology from the Australian National University.

Raised in California and completing his bachelor’s degree there, Dr. Mautz never imagined participating in an international experience. For his master’s degree, he moved to Illinois where he connected with a research mentor who encouraged him to attend an international conference. It was there that he met a faculty member from Australia who later encouraged Dr. Mautz to apply to his institution’s doctoral program. Below are highlights from our interview with Dr. Mautz.

Motivation to Seek out International Postdoc Positions

We asked Dr. Mautz what motivated him to pursue international postdocs.  He shared that there were several reasons, but mostly he just wasn’t ready to move back to the US after completing his PhD in Australia. He loved living there and wanted to experience more of the world. Living in other countries made travel to additional places cheaper and more feasible.

Second, many countries pay slightly to significantly more than US postdoc positions, but this also varies by field. And depending on global finances, foreign currencies (e.g., Swedish krona, British pounds, and euros) may be stronger than the US dollar, which can be financially beneficial.

Finally, when he completed his PhD, the effects of the 2008 global financial crisis were still roiling the US. There weren’t a ton of opportunities for postdocs in the US at the end of 2011 and in early 2012. International postdocs allowed him to expand research opportunities and stay in academic science. Dr. Mautz is quick to note potential parallels to the current COVID crisis and its yet unknown impact on economies around the world. Looking internationally could hold big incentives for those desiring to stay in academic science.

Searching and Applying for International Postdoc Positions

The application process is like the US experience. You can find opportunities by visiting university or industry job listing websites, job boards at conferences, in journals such as Science or Nature, listed in topic-specific journals, or on professional association websites.

When applying for postdoc positions, it is helpful to know someone in the organization since they post more widely than academia and may receive more applications. An “in” will help your application be viewed. It is also helpful to visit the organizations’ websites to review the job descriptions and postings. Most global companies and universities/institutions offer an English version of job listings.

As with US positions, you submit your CV and letter of interest to the institution or as instructed by the posting. If invited to interview, it would typically be conducted through an online format. You likely would not visit the institution or company prior to accepting a position, so determining lab fit without an in-person visit is important. Don’t base your decision on just an interview with the potential PI. [Excellent advice for any postdoc position, international or domestic, regardless of interview medium.] Instead, reach out to people currently and formerly in the lab to hear about their experiences. When talking with others, be cognizant of your work style, and remember that their style may not work well with the PI, but the PI’s style may work for you. Finally, remember that you may be hearing information that should be kept confidential.

Visa Process

The process for obtaining a visa changes often, so be sure to check the latest regulations when the time comes. The US has specific work visa agreements with many countries, which often makes it better for US citizens to apply after you have a job offer. Some countries use a points-based system to grant work visas; having the job offer increases your points and, therefore, eligibility and often expedites the process.

Benefits of an International Postdoc Experience

Being immersed in new cultures and languages were some of the biggest benefits from the international fellowships Dr. Mautz experienced. Similar to a US experience, an international postdoc increases your research network, and the global reach of those connections helps diversify and improve your science. That network continues to spread globally throughout your career as you and your connections move on to new opportunities. Dr. Mautz also found that having international experience on your CV is viewed positively when returning to the US to find a faculty position.

Personally, Dr. Mautz found that his international colleagues had a heightened understanding of work-life balance. He greatly appreciated this perspective and has incorporated it into his own career. He feels having this balance makes you more productive.

Challenges of an International Postdoc Experience

If this sounds enticing so far, you should also consider some of the potential challenges. First, overcoming the mental and emotional hurdles of applying to and ultimately accepting an international postdoc position can be the biggest initial burden. Thoughts of leaving family, friends, home, familiarity/comfort, etc. is overwhelming.  It’s not easy to move to a new place, and it can take a while to make new friends and feel like you are at home. For Dr. Mautz, completing a PhD abroad greatly reduced the initial anxiety and “startup energy” of moving to an unfamiliar place for a postdoc because he was familiar with the emotional and financial tolls. Even so, he shared that his adjustment time was 6-18 months.

It’s important to understand your personal needs, especially related to your support network. How important is being near family to you? How often would you like to travel home, and is that financially viable? Is video conferencing with family enough to meet those needs? Dr. Mautz only traveled home about every 18 months to visit his family.

There are other financial challenges to consider as well. Dr. Mautz found it was not common to receive an allotment for moving costs with an international postdoc offer in academia. That expense, whether shipping abroad, buying new furnishings, or renting a furnished apartment, will be your own expense.

Dr. Mautz strongly encourages US citizens to be aware of tax laws. The US usually requires you to report income on US and state tax filings annually, even when all earnings are from another country. If paying taxes in a foreign country, you won’t typically have to pay US taxes, but you still must file the US income tax return. These laws do change, so it is important to review them often.

Below are a few resources if you would like to explore what international postdoctoral fellowship opportunities are available. Thank you to Dr. Mautz for sharing his experience with us.

Academic Positions Major Postdoc Fellowships

National Postdoctoral Association International Central Hub

Scholarships Lab Postdoctoral Fellowships

What the F? Deciding When to Submit an NRSA Fellowship

Grants & Funding / Trainees

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 8th 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 1st of next year, you must submit your application nine months prior on August 8th 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.

What the F? An Introduction to the NRSA Fellowship

Grants & Funding / Trainees

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