Category: Grant Writing

Strategies for the New NIH Biosketch Format (Part 2)

The new Contribution to Science section of the new NIH biosketch format is what seems to be exercising researchers the most. While comments in response to the initial announcement about these changes on Dr. Sally Rockey’s blog cover a wide range of anxieties pertaining to this change, the angst seems to boil down in many (but not all) cases to questions about length and motivation. Length is what it is, but regarding motivation: How do position yourself and phrase your descriptions if you don’t understand the motivation of the audience to which you are writing? In this post, I discuss the likely motivation behind this change and strategies for writing an effective, competitive Contribution to Science section.

Yesterday’s post discussed how the new NIH biosketch format is raising the anxiety levels of many researchers. I stick with my assertion that the change is likely inevitable, so the strategic researcher will channel that energy currently fueling the anxiety into developing a new, strategic, biosketch in the new format. Yesterday I reviewed some basic strategic concepts behind the biosketch in general, and today I will discuss some strategies specific to the new format of the NIH biosketch.

Continue reading “Strategies for the New NIH Biosketch Format (Part 2)”

NIH Announces Genomic Data Sharing Policy

Today, Dr. Sally Rockey, Deputy Director for Extramural Research at the NIH, announced in her blog that the NIH has published the final NIH Genomic Data Sharing Policy. This policy requires that researchers proposing research that will result in “large-scale human or non-human genomic data” provide a genomic data sharing plan in their application for NIH funding (unless otherwise explicitly stated in the funding announcement). Continue reading “NIH Announces Genomic Data Sharing Policy”

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?”