Tag: NIH

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!

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?”