Month: July 2014

NIH Investigator-Based Support Begins!

Just a quick update of note today, which is also a call to action:

Immediately following the joint announcement by Drs. Collins and Rockey yesterday of the NIH’s new investigator-based funding, NIGMS issued an RFI for an investigator-based pilot funding program. (I discussed this new funding model in yesterday’s post.) Similar announcements from NIH centers and programs will follow, and I would encourage all researchers interested in seeing this funding model succeed to take the time to respond to these RFIs. As I explained in yesterday’s blog, the NIH clearly recognizes the challenges being faced by researchers–especially new investigators–in the current funding climate and is working to make changes to improve the environment. The strategic researcher will take the time to learn about–and shape through responding to RFIs–these new opportunities as quickly as possible.

I will re-tweet these opportunities as they become available. My Twitter handle is @JKNByram, and my Twitter feed is available on this blog page, kellybyram.wordpress.com.  You are invited to follow me for timely updates.

More Changes to Funding at NIH to Benefit Researchers

Shrinking pools of research funding, lower success rates, and increasing resource scarcity at research institutions strain most researchers, but new researchers have had a particularly difficult time securing funding of late and many have left the field as a result. The NIH has signaled awareness of these pressures, announcing in April changes to the biosketch form that benefit new researchers and the replacement of the onerous “one resubmission” rule with a more relaxed policy.

Today, Dr. Sally Rockey and Dr. Francis Collins announced that the NIH would allow its centers and programs to offer longer, sustained funding to researchers in the model of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s (HHMI) “people, not projects” funding model. Continue reading “More Changes to Funding at NIH to Benefit Researchers”

How Do Multi-PI Applications Fare?

In her blog entry, How Do Multi-PI Applications Fare?, Dr. Sally Rockey, Deputy Director for Extramural Research at the NIH, explains that:

Only in 2013 is there a significant difference in award rate between single PI and multi-PI award rates, and this is in favor of multi-PI awards. But for most years, and overall, there doesn’t seem to be a trend indicating that multi-PI applications are more (or less) likely to be awarded than single PI applications.

So, when you’re applying to NIH for research funding, while there are many other considerations to take into account in deciding whether to submit a multiple-PI application, preference for funding is not one of them. As always, the key questions to ask is:  what would best address the science being proposed? Would a single- or multiple-PI model best ensure optimal leadership of this research project? Additionally, when considering the multi-PI option, be sure to consider how you will structure the roles of the investigators to meet the goals of your proposed research.

While it is great to hear this answer for the NIH, I would suggest that researchers be careful not to extrapolate this answer to other funders for which team science with multiple PIs might more closely align with the mission. The prudent grant writer should research what types of  projects are getting funded by the agency or foundation with which they think their proposed research might closely align. This should be done early in the process of developing a team and a proposal. This process includes analyzing what type of teams are able to complete the type of work being done–as Dr. Rockey phrases it, “what would best address the science being proposed?” What applies for the NIH does not necessarily apply for your team’s proposed project or another funder–know what will, and then build your team accordingly!

Winning the Talent Game at Academic Research Institutions

Administrators at academic research institutions should follow the lead of nonprofit administrators when trying to attract talented professional staff.

Although on the surface academic research institutions and nonprofits may seem to have little in common, academic research institutions are nonprofits, and their heavy reliance on funding from external sources–grants, donations, etc.–creates very similar cultures and challenges for staff. In Liz Maw’s post, Winning the Talent Game, she discusses how nonprofits are falling short in their ability to attract talent, and it resounded with me. Her point about how hiring is not a top priority at nonprofits, allowing corporations to attract talent that would flourish at and enhance a nonprofit, struck a real chord. As the economy improves and hiring increases in the private sector, administrators at academic research institutions should heed the experience-based advice the nonprofit sector offers.

Continue reading “Winning the Talent Game at Academic Research Institutions”

When Is New Research the Bleeding Edge for Proposal Writers?

When choosing the primary sources for a research proposal, most of us experienced types dutifully instruct new researchers and proposal writers that sources older than five years are too old, unless you’re citing a seminal work. And there it usually ends–if primary research is less than five years old at the time of review, have at it. But recently a researcher pointed out the new reality of technology, the down side of our real-time existence–research that is too new. That’s right, research on which the digital ink has yet to dry can be too bleeding edge to reliably support your hypothesis in the eyes of reviewers. There are two primary reasons this is a new, but important, reality in the world of research proposals. Continue reading “When Is New Research the Bleeding Edge for Proposal Writers?”

Plagiarism Is Theft of IP, and It Is Unethical in All Forms Period

I typically dislike getting into a fray, but a tweet this morning struck a nerve. I write the following entry not to start a throw down, but to defend intellectual property rights.

I was disheartened to read my Twitter feed this morning, in which @NatureNews (yes, Nature!) promoted one of its columns in which the author applies ethical relativism to plagiarism. He claims “not all plagiarism requires a retraction.” I respectfully disagree. The author divides plagiarism into three types of theft: ideas, results, and words. He argues vociferously against the theft of those areas in his wheelhouse, ideas and results, and thinks those thefts of intellectual property should be prosecuted to the fullest. He discounts the theft of writing, since apparently it is not something he “values”:

“Such plagiarism is unethical and it is a form of misconduct, but scientists are not writers. We value the originality of ideas more than of language. There are worse offences than text plagiarism — such as taking credit for someone else’s research ideas and lifting their results. These are harder to detect than copy-and-pasted text, so receive less attention. This should change. To help, academic journals could, for instance, change the ways in which they police and deal with such cases.”

Writing is a skill that enables the clear communication of ideas and results and facilitates the dissemination of knowledge and the development of science, among other things. It is essential, and it is valuable, and there are plenty of top scientists who are also superb writers. E. O. Wilson’s Diversity of Life was a major inspiration for me to become a wildlife biologist. Without his writing skill, I may never have become aware of his amazing, paradigm-shifting work in the field of biology, his science. To say that writing is not intellectual property to be valued in the same way “ideas” and “results” is to undermine the very way in which “ideas” and “results” live and perpetuate science, and it discounts the work of some of the best scientists in history who were also gifted writers.

Further, science is about the ability to synthesize information to create new ideas. Simple regurgitation and narration of past findings holds no value in the movement of science forward. Plagiarism of language is regurgitation used in narration, a mark of the lack of synthesis and original thought. Detection of plagiarism in documents such as research reports and grant proposals are clear indications that the writer is regurgitating, not synthesizing. What is the value of the research being reported or proposed in this case? Likely very little.

There are countless reasons why the theft of any intellectual property is wrong without caveat. It is theft, after all. Distinguishing between types of theft serves little purpose. And might I point out that people rarely steal that which they do not, in some way, value. To argue that language is of lesser value, and therefore its theft should be punished less than that of ideas and results is fallacious. If it is of little or no value to you, then don’t steal it.

Boom.

 

Grants Are Business


Those of you who follow my blog have probably noticed a lack of blogging of late–I am finishing my MBA, and there is quite a bit to do in these last weeks of the program. My first graduate degree was in biology, and the final weeks were actually much more relaxing than the months of research and writing that had preceded them. I am currently in a scramble to get things done, and to get done. So I will be brief.

In the MBA theme, I will share the key thesis of my grantsmanship strategy: A grant proposal is a business proposal. Boom. Pretty simple. But I am always amazed by how academicians want to resist the concept that they are, fundamentally, selling an idea and their team’s labor. There is some feeling among academics that the grant proposal is somehow more intellectual, more precious, than a business proposal. I’m here to tell you it is not. Rant, yell, cry, go through the five stages of grief, but at some point arrive to the realization that you are asking for money for your idea and a plan to create the end product . . . which is a business proposal.

Once you come to grips with the realization that a grant proposal is nothing more than a business proposal, you will be liberated and more efficient. At the highest level, if you are a strategic, efficient person, you will research the needs and perspective of the funder and have a much better understanding of the direction your proposal should take. That is, if you are strategic, you will do your research into what the funder is looking for and give it to them. This effect will ripple through all aspects of the development of your project and proposal, and you will produce a more competitive, fundable proposal. Boom.