The views expressed in articles published in News & Networking are those of the authors alone. They do not necessarily represent the views or opinions of AACR leadership, membership or staff.
Selected Articles
The first grant writing experience: The predoc
application
by Jim Jackson
In my first year of graduate school, I
attended an AACR meeting to present some data from the lab I had previously
worked in. There, in the exhibit hall, the Department of Defense Breast Cancer
Research Program had a booth and was distributing information on funding
opportunities. I knew they offered predoctoral grants (it was brought up in the
AACR Grant Writing Workshop I attended the day before), and I had thought about
looking into it further, so at that booth I ended up getting all the
information I needed to apply.
The next thing I had to decide on was when
to apply. The due date for the grant was in about 6 weeks, and so I strongly
considered waiting a year to get some preliminary data. However, one of my
friends and former mentors advised me to get the application in soon. Grants
for trainees are generally scored with more weight given to the trainee's
potential, the mentor and the environment along with the proposal. However, for
independent investigator grants, disproportionate weight is given to the
hypothesis and experimental design, supported by preliminary data.
With the due date firmly set, I put my
application together. It totaled 28 different files, including the 16 page
scientific proposal. Other files required included a detailed cost estimate, a
facilities description and a lay abstract. I requested and received letters of
support from my current and previous mentors. I also added a senior researcher
at my institution as a co-mentor, because my graduate advisor was an expert in
cell biology, but not in breast cancer. This co-mentor proved quite helpful, as
he had served on DOD study sections and was able to provide valuable input on
my proposal. I also obtained letters from collaborators inside and outside my
institution who were experts in mass spectrometry, chromatin
immunoprecipitation and RNA interference (an emerging technology at the time!)
I was able to meet my goals for finishing
each section. I got relevant parts out to my mentor and other advisors for
comments and input in time to incorporate the changes. I submitted my
application online a few days earlier than the due date in June. In December, I
received the letter reading, "STATUS: RECOMMENDED FOR FUNDING."
After the award, day to day life didn't
change much. However, in addition to having my salary and benefits paid for
(freeing up my mentor's grant money for equipment, supplies, etc) I had money
to travel to meetings. Being a grantee also came with obligations to the DOD,
including presenting at the DOD meeting (which featured great speakers such as
Drs. Judah Folkman, Professor, Harvard Medical School and Dennis J. Slamon,
Professor, David Geffen School of Medicine, UCLA) and compiling annual
summaries that were reviewed. Even though the project ultimately did not go as
detailed in the proposal (do they ever?) the reviewers were scientists
sympathetic to this reality and supportive of the direction the studies
ultimately went. In all, it was a valuable and rewarding experience, and one of
those benchmarks every early career scientist hopes to meet in their career.
Originally published in the June 2008 News & Networking
The Path to a
Funded Susan G. Komen Grant as a Postdoctoral Fellow
by Chi-Chen Hong
I began my postdoctoral experience the day
after Labor Day in 2004. On day one, I had a meeting with my mentor to discuss
potential research topics and at the end of the discussion I had the topic
narrowed down to "obesity and breast cancer." For the next four
months, I was given free rein to explore, read, and write. In January 2005 I
proposed a project, based on my scientific meanderings, to look at the
determinants of weight gain in women with breast cancer. I was given an encouraging
green light from my mentor to develop the project, and promise of initial funds
to get the study started. Then the grant writing began! Taking the strategy I
used during my Ph.D., I sent the research idea everywhere I could within an
eight month period, and hoped that somebody - anybody - would fund it.
I first wrote up a small institutional
grant in February, with my mentor as principal investigator (PI), and me as the
Co-PI. This was followed by two applications for mentored postdoctoral fellowships:
one to the New York State Department of Health for a two-year award, and one to
the United States Department of Defense for their three year Multidisciplinary
Postdoctoral fellowship award. The last grant I wrote up with the same research
idea was for an investigator-initiated grant to the Susan G. Komen Foundation
(they hadn't changed their name yet), which was submitted in August of 2005. By
the time I decided to submit a Komen grant, it seemed like a good idea to apply
for a regular investigator-initiated grant as opposed to a mentored
postdoctoral grant. I had already applied for two mentored awards and therefore
wanted to try my hand at applying for a "real" grant. In reading
between the lines of the Komen application guidelines, it seemed that the Komen
Foundation was extremely sympathetic to the funding and training of new
investigators as well, since "Independent investigators at any stage of
their research careers are eligible to apply" and "senior
investigators are strongly encouraged to include, as a collaborator, a
faculty member at an early stage of his/her career." Given that not many
funding agencies accept applications from postdoctoral fellows, I thought it
was a wonderful opportunity to try for a "non-mentored" grant. The
strategy I used in writing up the grant was the inverse of what was recommended
- i.e. it was an application from an early-stage investigator padded with many
senior collaborators.
I was really, really lucky and was awarded
the institutional grant, and the two mentored postdoctoral fellowship grants
before receiving my scores from Komen. Unfortunately, my Komen score was barely
above the minimal 3.0 required for funding (with 4.0 being the highest score),
but fortuitously it was chosen as the 'wild card' application by the peer
review committee. Each study section is given an opportunity to recommend a
wild card application for funding that identifies a high impact application
that is ranked below the funding limit. Moreover, I was eventually allowed to
keep all of the grants after explaining to each agency that the required funds
to carry out the project exceeded the amount awarded in total. A revised budget
for each agency had to be prepared and approved by each of the other funding
agencies. The whole process took a long time, but was a great learning
experience, and really underscored how flexible and open these agencies were to
post-award negotiations and how supportive they were of the actual research
project.
Looking back at my postdoctoral
experiences, I am really grateful that I was given the academic freedom to
explore and develop my own research ideas. Writing the string of grants during
my first year was terrific for grant writing experience and helped tremendously
in my transition to an independent investigator. Moreover, developing my own
line of research during my postdoctoral years and receiving multiple sources of
funding was a key factor, I believe, in being later offered a permanent
academic position. I think it is absolutely wonderful that so many funding
agencies provide grants that target the development of early-career scientists,
and that some agencies, such as the Komen, are willing to consider and even
encourage applications from investigators very early on in their careers.
Applying for these awards represent a unique opportunity for an early-career
investigator to kick-start their academic careers.
Originally published in the June 2008 News & Networking
10 Things I Wish I'd Known Before I Wrote My K99
by Tracy Vargo-Gogola, Ph.D.
I decided to apply for a K99/R00 Howard Temin Pathway to Independence Award in Cancer Research in March of 2006, during the fourth year of my postdoctoral training. I had just interviewed for a faculty position, an interview that I was incredibly fortunate to have considering the state of my curriculum vitae at that time. Following the interview, I was dejected; it was clear that my pursuit of a faculty position was premature. The chair of the department in which I had interviewed was very kind, and she and I had a candid discussion about my career goals and the next step I should take towards achieving these goals. With her encouragement and support, as well as the support of my postdoctoral mentor, Dr. Jeffrey Rosen, I decided to apply for the K99/R00.
It was the first year that this award mechanism was offered, and there was a great deal of speculation about it. Unlike other NIH training and career development awards, K99 awards were not restricted to US citizens and permanent residents. For this reason, there was supposition that not only would there be fierce competition for this prestigious award, but also that everyone with fewer than five years of postdoctoral training would be submitting an application. It was starting to seem as if I might have a better chance at winning the Mega Millions Jackpot. In my forlorn state, I believed I had little to lose. If nothing more, I would have a detailed plan of experiments that I could pursue for the next 5 years of my postdoctoral training.
The process of applying for a major grant at that juncture in my career was an incredible learning experience, with a steep learning curve. Prior to writing the K99 grant, I had been awarded a Susan G. Komen predoctoral fellowship and a Department of Defense (DOD) Breast Cancer Research Program postdoctoral fellowship. I had also applied for a DOD Concept award (which was not funded), and I had written two aims of a P01 grant with my mentor, Jeff Rosen, which is now in its fourth year of funding. Despite having a fair amount of experience in applying for grants, I was unprepared for the challenges of the K99. The K99 application, which includes 25 pages of scientific writing and approximately 20 pages of supporting documents, was daunting. I had 10 weeks to complete the application. Perhaps it would have been a less stressful time if I had an article such as this, in which someone who had jumped and lived to tell about it had provided guidance and tips that are somehow missing from the 144 pages of the PHS 398 instructions. I therefore offer you the 10 things I wish I knew before I wrote my K99.
1. Talk with your mentors and the program director of the institute to which you are likely to submit your grant to discuss your eligibility, strength as a candidate, and appropriateness of your research topic for that particular institute.
2. Time is of the essence, allow yourself enough of it at each stage of the grant writing process to:
- Read and understand the PHS 398 instructions and K99 specific adaptations to these instructions, which totals more than 150 pages of detailed information.
- Meet with your department officials and office of research (OOR) personnel who manage grant submissions at your institution to learn about their procedures for grant routing and submission. Be sure to ask when their deadlines are to ensure submission of your grant by the NIH deadline. The OOR must also generate an eRA Commons website account for you prior to submission of your grant. This account allows you access to the electronic research administration (eRA) of the NIH for online grant submission and management. I became very familiar with the Commons website around the time of my grant review date when I found myself compulsively checking it for updates.
- Ask early for letters of recommendation from 3 individuals in addition to your mentor. Give them sufficient time to write and submit their letter. Provide them with your CV and a summary of your research and career development plans.
- Write the scientific plans (which includes the career development plans) of the proposal. For this you may need at least 4-6 weeks of designated writing time.
- Complete the paperwork burden associated with the grant. The PHS 398 instructions estimate that it will take you 40 hours to complete the administrative documents that must be submitted with the proposal. These 40 hours are exclusive of the time required to develop the scientific plans. If this is your first major grant it may take you longer.
- Get feedback from your peers and mentors. Be prepared to give them a draft of your proposal 2-3 weeks before you have to send it to your department officials and OOR. This will allow them ample time to read your grant and for you to revise your proposal after receiving their critiques.
- Finish your proposal a few days ahead of schedule in case there are any problems with the submission process. We have all heard stories of computers crashing while the grant is uploading 10 minutes before the 5 PM deadline. Submitting early gives you a cushion of time in the event of unforeseen problems.
3. Know your reviewers. I mistakenly thought that a topic-specific study section would review my K99 application. In fact, each of the NIH centers that offer K99 awards has a designated K99 review panel. This is an important point because while your reviewers are likely experts in their field, it may not be your field. Thus, as you write each section of the Scientific Plan (abstract, introduction, significance, specific aims, experimental design, anticipated outcomes and alternative approaches), be careful to avoid what I like to refer to as "expert syndrome". If you are afflicted with "expert syndrome" you may become too engrossed in the highly specific details of your research plan. As a result, you may fail to provide the fundamental aspects of the science underlying your hypothesis and experimental plans that are necessary for your reviewers to critically evaluate the following: the relevance of the hypothesis being investigated, quality of the research, feasibility of the studies, and whether the proposed studies will help you to accomplish your career development objectives. You must achieve a balance between providing the fundamental information as well as the specific details underlying your research plans.
4. What are the reviewers evaluating?
- Your strength as a candidate: are you an independent, mature, and productive junior scientist with the potential to become a leader in your field? To assess this they will evaluate your publication record, evidence of fellowships or other grants, and letters of recommendation.
- Your career development plan: does the candidate have a well-defined career development plan (what to include in this section is discussed in detail later)? When you finish the mentored phase of the award will you be well positioned to compete for a faculty appointment and an R01 within the next few years?
- Research plan: does the candidate have a well-conceived research plan? Is the research hypothesis driven? Are outcomes, potential problems, and alternative approaches thoughtfully considered? Is there a clear demarcation between the studies to be performed during the mentored and independent phases? Clearly state how you will overlap and distinguish yourself from your mentor. Does the proposed research have the potential to contribute to the mission of the institute and lead to advances in the field?
- Your mentor: is he an established, well-funded investigator? Does he have a strong record of providing excellent training? Is he committed to your training and successful transition to a faculty position? The letter of support from your mentor should address these points.
- Environment and institutional commitment to candidate: will the environment facilitate success in both the candidate's research and career development? The letter from your department chairman should address these points.
5. Be sure to understand the purpose of each section of the proposal. For example, in my application I did not include any information in the Candidate Section. I failed to realize that this was my opportunity to provide information about publications that were in progress or in review, which cannot be included in the bibliography section. Note that the bibliography section can only include manuscripts that are published or accepted for publication. Had I realized this, it may have strengthened my application. If you have questions about any aspect of the application, ask the program director.
6. This is a career development award, and thus, the Career Development Plan is a critical aspect of the application. Use this section to outline how this grant will literally serve as a map to navigate your pathway to independence. Specifically, how will you use this additional training to distinguish yourself from your mentor? Delineate how the proposed studies will provide a foundation for your future career as an independent scientist. Discuss your short-term goals (e.g. publish papers on ongoing studies, master new techniques, develop a new model system) and long-term career goals (e.g. establish an independent research program to take to a faculty position in a particular research area). How will the proposed research aims and career development plans help you to achieve these goals? Describe the expertise of your mentors, how you plan to interact with them, and how these interactions will foster success in your research and career development. Discuss any seminars, journal clubs, and conferences you will attend that will enhance your career development. When preparing this section, also be sure to put it in the context of the two phases of the award. Provide a time frame for your studies and career development activities. Which aims and goals will you pursue during the mentored phase of the award, and how will achieving these goals during this time frame help you to succeed during the independent phase of the award?
7. Get feedback from your peers and mentors. I cannot stress this enough. Identify two fellow postdocs who have a strong command of written English, some experience preparing grant applications, and are willing to critically evaluate your proposal. If possible, choose one reviewer who has expertise in your research area and one who does not. The latter will serve as a barometer for whether you were afflicted with "expert syndrome" while preparing your proposal. Allow enough time for them to thoroughly evaluate your proposal and for you to revise your proposal prior to sending it to your mentors. Lastly, be sure to return the favor when asked to review someone's grant.
8. Choose your mentors well. Identify mentors who have areas of expertise in various aspects of your proposed research plans. Formulate a plan to meet with them regularly and describe this plan in the Career Development section.
9. In addition to the letter of support from your direct mentor and 3 letters of recommendation from other faculty mentors, you will need a letter of support from your department chairman. Department chairmen are incredibly busy. Prepare a draft of this letter in which you highlight the strengths of the training environment, the facilities and resources available at your institution, your direct mentor's training history, and include a statement indicating that you will be released from other duties so that you can devote a minimum of 75% effort to you K99 grant (the application instructions specifically ask for this). Provide your chairman with a draft of the letter, and ask that he modify and sign it. Again, allow him ample time to do this.
10. Real people do get awarded K99 awards, and the chances are slightly better than winning a Mega Millions Jackpot.
Originally distributed at the Grant Writing Workshop and Associate Member Resource Center during the AACR Annual Meeting 2008
Traditional Gender Roles Hinder Women in Academia
by
Chi-Chen Hong
Two recent studies published in the November 2007 issue of EMBO Reports
continue the discussion of why women in the life sciences still remain
under-represented in academia, holding only 15 to 20% of tenured
positions, despite the fact that a near identical number of men and
women obtain a Ph.D. in these fields. Findings from the first report by
Martinez and colleagues were summarized by Jessica Faupel-Badger in the last issue of News & Networking
and point to reasons for the dramatic leakage of women between their
postdoctoral years and a tenured PI position. Women were more often
reluctant to persevere on the academic path because of concerns about
their ability to meet family responsibilities. Exacerbating the problem
is women's lower confidence compared to male peers that they would be
able to attain a PI position, and subsequently secure tenure.
On a positive note, however, the academic achievements of men and women
seem to be similarly assessed when compared side-by-side. In the second
report by Ledin et al.,
EMBO explored gender bias as a possible reason for why the success rate
for obtaining an EMBO fellowship is 20% lower for female applicants. In
two rounds of competition in 2006, members of the selection committee
were blinded to the applicant's gender. Surprisingly, gender
differences in success rate persisted and were 19% lower for female
applicants. When examining possible reasons for this, the authors found
that awarded male and female applicants did not differ in their number
of total publications, citation counts, or total impact factor, but
when all applicants were considered, women on average had a
significantly lower number of publications, total impact factor of
first and last author publications, and total citations. Worse, this
productivity gap seemed to widen at later career stages. Therefore
awarded men and women had comparable achievements, but women in general
were less productive compared to their male counterparts, which
affected their overall success rate at securing fellowships.
A series of surveys sent to previous fellowship applicants to explore
possible reasons for lower average productivity yielded almost
identical findings to those of Martinez et al. Responders most often
cited difficulties in balancing career and family, needing to take
parental leave when they had children, and more often adjusting their
careers to suit their partners. Thus, while women are similarly
assessed compared to men when achievements are equal, it seems that
women in general need to achieve that same level of productivity with
more on their plates (outside the laboratory) and with fewer resources
and less support. Compared to men, women were less likely to receive
professional mentoring, and reported that their supervisors became less
supportive and more critical after they had children. These recurrent
findings of women being hindered in academia by traditional views of
gender roles, held by both themselves and the greater society,
contributes to a negative work culture for women in academia. Thus,
without creative policies in place that enable and, perhaps more
importantly, that encourage women scientists to persevere, we as a
society will continue to lose the future contributions of many
highly-trained scientists, particularly those early in their careers.
Two newly created AACR fellowships developed by the AMC could help to
stem the loss of highly trained early-career women scientists. Each
allows recipients the possibility of transitioning to the next career
level during the tenure of their award, thus making them more
attractive to future employers.
Originally published in the January 2008 News & Networking
Women (and Children) in Academia
by Jessica Faupel-Badger
While the issue of under-representation of women in faculty positions at biomedical research institutions has received attention for some time, two new studies in EMBO reports attempt to discern the underlying reasons for this occurrence. The first report by Martinez and colleagues is based on a survey of postdoctoral fellows in the intramural research program at the National Institutes of Health and is highlighted in this week’s Science. (Findings from the second report will be highlighted in the next issue of N&N.) Study participants were queried about their desire to attain an independent research or principal investigator position; their perceptions about their own ability to achieve this position; and barriers that may affect their ability to pursue this career path. Approximately 1,300 (or about half) of NIH postdoctoral fellows completed the survey, of which 43% were women and 57% men. These gender demographics are consistent with nationwide data on postdoctoral fellows.
Study findings showed that 2/3 of men were interested in pursuing a PI position, compared to only half of the women. This difference was attributed primarily to differences in family responsibilities. While both male and female postdoctoral fellows were much less likely to have children when compared to the general US population, female fellows were more likely to be childless (75%) compared to male fellows (65%). This statistic speaks to a large portion of the report. Women were more likely than men to rate having children or having more children and spending time with family as very important and/or as a factor influencing their career decision. Women were also less likely to have a spouse or relative provide childcare, more likely to say they would make career concessions for their spouse, and less likely to expect their spouse to make career concessions for them. While other workplace issues were found to contribute to gender differences in career goals, the most striking difference between men and women were related to children and family issues, thus leading the authors to conclude that women may have more concerns than men about balancing a PI position with family responsibilities.
Another statistic of note is that women were less confident than men that they would achieve a PI position and subsequently attain tenure. Perhaps this is not surprising given that women comprise only 19% of tenured senior investigator positions at NIH, similar to rates reported across most biomedical research institutes. Women are, therefore, more likely to be mentored by men and to have less exposure to female role models in PI positions, particularly those who have successfully balanced career with children. As noted in the accompanying editorial to this report, this may feed back into the cycle of women feeling that a PI career is incompatible with family responsibilities, and leading to reduced self-confidence for pursuing this option.
If any lesson is to be learned from this report, it is that women are seeking to balance career options with family responsibilities. In order to prevent the loss of talented highly-trained women scientists early in their career, it is important that family-friendly measures be introduced into the academic environment. In the survey, when asked about factors that would make a PI position more attractive, women were more likely than men to rate affordable childcare, location close to spouse, and flexible/part-time hours as important. As Martinez and colleagues point out, biomedical research institutions should take note of these concerns when developing recruitment packages, if they want to have more female applicants. Reciprocally, women applicants should not be reluctant to push for such measures when negotiating their academic positions.
Originally published in the November 2007 News & Networking