WELCOME TO NIH.
I'M DORIT ZUK,
I'M THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR
OF THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF GENERAL MEDICAL SCIENCES,
FORMALLY KNOWN AS NIGMS.
I'D LIKE TO WELCOME YOU TO THE MEETING.
I'M HOPING WE'RE GONNA HAVE
A REALLY INTERESTING DISCUSSION TODAY.
I DID WANNA REMIND EVERYONE
THAT THIS IS ACTUALLY BEING BROADCAST ON A ZOOM AS WELL,
AND THERE ARE 150 REGISTRANTS,
SO ALTHOUGH YOU GUYS IN THE ROOM WILL BE THE ONES
WHO'LL BE ABLE TO DISCUSS AND ASK QUESTIONS,
THE CONTENT IS GOING OUT TO A LOT MORE PEOPLE.
AND WITHOUT FURTHER ADO,
I'M JUST GONNA TURN IT OVER TO MONICA HOOPER,
AND SHE'S GONNA START OFF THE FIRST PANEL.
- [MONICA] GOOD MORNING, CAN YOU HEAR ME?
- [AV TECH] YOU WILL HAVE TO USE THE MICROPHONE.
- SHE HAS A MIC.
- [MONICA] I HAVE A LAVALIER.
- [AV TECH] TURN IT ON THEN.
- [MONICA] IT'S NOT ON?
- [AV TECH] IT PROBABLY WILL WITHOUT THE BOX.
- HOLD ON.
OKAY, THAT'S BETTER.
OKAY, SO I WANNA START BY WELCOMING YOU.
I'M MONICA WEBB HOOPER,
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE
ON MINORITY HEALTH AND HEALTH DISPARITIES.
WELCOME TO NIH.
WE'RE SO APPRECIATIVE
THAT ALL OF YOU HAVE TAKEN THE TIME TO BE HERE.
AND AS MY COLLEAGUE DR. ZUK MENTIONED,
WE'RE REALLY LOOKING FORWARD
TO ONE AND A HALF DAYS OF VERY RICH DISCUSSION.
IN OUR FIRST SESSION,
WE WILL START WITH CONVERSATION
AND DIALOGUE WITH NIH LEADERSHIP,
WHO YOU SEE HERE.
I WILL ASK EACH OF THEM TO COME TO THE PODIUM,
OR YOU COULD SIT THERE,
WE DO HAVE A CLICKER HERE ALSO FOR YOU.
AND THEY'LL START WITH ABOUT FIVE MINUTES
OF JUST OPENING ABOUT THEIR INSTITUTES,
OFFICES, THEIR MISSION
TO SORT OF SET THE STAGE FOR SOME OF THE DISCUSSION.
AND THEN AFTER EACH OF THEM HAVE HAD A CHANCE
TO INTRODUCE THEMSELVES
AND SHARE WITH YOU FOR A BIT,
THEN WE WILL HAVE A MODERATED DISCUSSION
THAT MOSTLY WILL BE GENERATED
BY THE QUESTIONS THAT YOU ASK.
SO WE HOPE THAT YOU'VE COME
WITH A LOT OF QUESTIONS AND THINGS
THAT YOU'RE INTERESTED IN
SINCE YOU HAVE THEIR FULL ATTENTION FOR THIS SESSION.
AND THEN WE'LL LET THE CONVERSATION MOVE ON,
AND THEN WE'LL HAVE THE NEXT MEETING,
OR THE NEXT PART OF THE MEETING.
SO AGAIN, WELCOME,
AND I THINK IF YOU'D LIKE TO COME TO THE PODIUM,
YOU CAN DO THAT,
OR IF YOU'D LIKE TO SIT
AND MOVE THROUGH
THE PRESENTATIONS THAT WAY. - SITTING'S OKAY.
- [MONICA] SITTING'S OKAY?
- I'M GOING TO THE PODIUM.
- [MONICA] YOU'RE GONNA GO TO THE PODIUM.
- [ELISEO] OH, WHO'S FIRST?
- [MONICA] YOU ARE FIRST.
OKAY, SO.
(ALL LAUGHING)
SO WE'LL START WITH THE DIRECTOR
OF THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON MINORITY HEALTH
AND HEALTH DISPARITIES,
DR. ELISEO PEREZ-STABLE.
- GOOD MORNING.
I THINK THE SLIDES ARE INCLUDED HERE, YEAH.
OKAY, SO.
BRIEFLY, NIMHD STARTED,
THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON MINORITY HEALTH
AND HEALTH DISPARITIES STARTED IN 1990 AS AN OFFICE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR.
IT WAS AN ACT THAT WAS RECOMMENDED BY DR. LOUIS
SULLIVAN,
WHO WAS THEN SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES.
IN THE YEAR 2000 THROUGH LEGISLATION,
IT WAS ELEVATED TO A CENTER
THROUGH THE MINORITY HEALTH
AND HEALTH DISPARITIES RESEARCH AND EDUCATION ACT.
THAT'S WHEN OUR FOUNDATION EXISTS TODAY
WHERE WE HAD GRANT AUTHORITY,
GRANT-MAKING AUTHORITY,
AS WELL AS FOCUSING ON MINORITY HEALTH
AND HEALTH DISPARITIES,
OUR DRIVERS OF DISPARITIES
BASED ON THESE SORT OF SOCIAL IDENTITY
OR SOCIAL CLASS FACTORS
THAT AFFECT POPULATIONS IN DIFFERENT CONTEXTS,
PARTICULARLY BY GEOGRAPHY
AND ALSO CONDITIONS.
AND AS WE CAN SEE FROM SUBSEQUENT DECLARATIONS IN 2016,
SEXUAL AND GENDER MINORITIES,
AND THEN IN 2023,
PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES WERE DESIGNATED
AS POPULATIONS WITH HEALTH DISPARITIES.
IN 2010, AS PART OF THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT,
WE BECAME AN INSTITUTE,
AND THIS WAS ALL UNDER THE LEADERSHIP OF DR. JOHN RUFFIN.
AND WE CELEBRATED OUR ANNIVERSARY IN 2020,
RIGHT BEFORE WE SHUT DOWN FOR THE PANDEMIC.
JUST REAL BRIEFLY,
ILLUSTRATE AN ORGANIZATIONAL CHART
NOT SO MUCH TO CONFUSE YOU
BUT TO EMPHASIZE THE THREE DIVISIONS
OF EXTRAMURAL RESEARCH FUNDING.
NIMHD DOES NOT FUND BASIC SCIENCE
EXCEPT THROUGH THE RESEARCH CENTERS
IN MINORITY INSTITUTIONS PROGRAM,
WHICH I WILL SHARE A COMMENT ABOUT IN A MINUTE.
BUT WE HAVE, FIRST OF ALL,
THE DIVISION OF COMMUNITY HEALTH AND POPULATION SCIENCES.
THIS HAS HAD A LONG HISTORY
OF WORKING ON COMMUNITY-ENGAGED RESEARCH
THROUGH A PROGRAM THAT LASTED OVER 20 YEARS,
AND WE CONTINUE IT TO THIS DAY FOCUSING ON INTERVENTIONS.
IT HAS SEEN REALLY THE LIGHT OF DAY
THROUGH THE EFFORTS DONE THROUGH THE PANDEMIC.
WE ALSO HAVE A MECHANISTIC DIVISION
WE CALL DIVISION OF INTEGRATIVE BIOLOGICAL
AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES,
AND STAFF HAVE ADDED ENVIRONMENTAL.
AND THAT IS FOCUSED ON MECHANISMS
BOTH BEHAVIORAL- AND BIOLOGY-RELATED
THAT LEAD TO HEALTH DISPARITIES.
AND FINALLY, BEGINNING IN 2016,
THE DIVISION OF CLINICAL AND HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH
TO FOCUS ON THE CLINICAL SETTING
AS WELL AS TO FUND HEALTH SERVICES.
THIS IS OUR RESEARCH FRAMEWORK
THAT STAFF DEVELOPED IN 2016, 2017,
WAS REALLY WITH THE INTENT OF CAPTURING THE COMPLEXITY
AND THE MANY FACETS OF MINORITY HEALTH
AND HEALTH DISPARITIES RESEARCH.
NOT INTENDED TO BE COMPREHENSIVE
AND NOT INTENDED TO BE CAUSAL IN DIRECTION,
ALTHOUGH IF YOU ASK ME,
MUCH OF WHAT WE DEAL WITH IS FROM SOCIETAL TO INDIVIDUAL
RATHER THAN ANY OTHER DIRECTION.
BUT YOU CAN SEE THE DIFFERENT COMPONENTS,
BIOLOGY, BEHAVIOR,
THE PHYSICAL OR BUILT ENVIRONMENT,
SOCIOCULTURAL ENVIRONMENT,
AS WELL AS THE HEALTHCARE SYSTEM,
PARTICULARLY RELEVANT TODAY
WITH SO MANY PEOPLE HAVING MULTIPLE CHRONIC DISEASES
AND ON MULTIPLE PRESCRIPTION MEDICATIONS.
WE HAVE USED THIS FRAMEWORK
AND ADAPTED IT TO MULTIPLE DIFFERENT POPULATIONS,
ARE WORKING ON HOW WE ADAPT THIS
IN TERMS OF CONTENT TO DIFFERENT POPULATIONS
DESIGNATED AS HAVING HEALTH DISPARITIES.
SOME OF OUR SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY HAVE ALREADY DONE THIS
WITH, FOR EXAMPLE,
AMERICAN INDIAN OR ALASKA NATIVE POPULATIONS.
SO IN TERMS OF PROGRAMS THAT WE RUN
THAT ARE RELEVANT TO THIS MEETING,
OF COURSE, ALL OF OUR PROGRAMS ARE RELEVANT
IN TERMS OF SUBMITTING GRANTS.
BUT THE RESEARCH CENTERS FOR MINORITY INSTITUTIONS,
WHICH ARE 22 CURRENTLY FUNDED,
13 ARE HBCUS,
ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE,
IN ORDER TO BE ELIGIBLE,
LESS THAN $50 MILLION PER YEAR IN NIH FUNDS,
ON AVERAGE OVER THREE YEARS.
THIS IS TOTAL COST.
WE ALSO HAVE A $25 MILLION R01 CEILING FOR THIS,
AND THE HISTORICAL COMMITMENT
TO WORKING WITH UNDERREPRESENTED
AND UNDERSERVED POPULATIONS.
THE JOHN LEWIS RESEARCH ENDOWMENT,
RENAMED IN 2022,
IS A UNIQUE PROGRAM TO NIMHD,
WHERE WE GIVE FUNDS TO AN INSTITUTION.
THEY HAVE TO PUT THE MONEY IN THE BANK,
SO TO SPEAK,
AND CANNOT TOUCH THE PRINCIPAL
FOR AT LEAST 20 YEARS AFTER THE END OF THE GRANT.
SO, SO FAR WE HAVEN'T HAD ANY OF THAT HAPPEN.
WE HAVE SIX CURRENTLY FUNDED INSTITUTIONS
THAT WERE FUNDED IN 2023.
THE CLINICAL RESEARCH EDUCATION
AND CAREER DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM IS AN R25 PROGRAM.
IT'S LINKED TO THE RCMI PROGRAM,
AND IT IS INTENDED TO SUPPORT THE DEVELOPMENT
OF CLINICIAN INVESTIGATORS,
SO THERE ARE THREE OF THESE GRANTS CURRENTLY FUNDED.
AND THE TRIBAL EPIDEMIOLOGY CENTERS,
IT'S A PROGRAM THAT THE CDC
AND THE INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE HAVE FUNDED
FOR ALMOST THREE DECADES.
AND WE SUPPORT U24 RESOURCE CENTERS
TO SUPPORT THESE 12 TRIBAL EPIDEMIOLOGY CENTERS,
THEY'RE DIVIDED ALONG GEOGRAPHIC LINES IN THE COUNTRY
BY INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE REGIONS,
WITH ONE FOCUSED ON URBAN INDIANS.
AND THIS CONTINUES AS A WAY TO BUILD CAPACITY
FOR RESEARCH IN THIS NETWORK
OF TRIBAL EPIDEMIOLOGY CENTERS.
AND FINALLY, WE HAVE AN INITIATIVE
THAT WAS IN PART LED BY DR. JON LORSCH
AND THE UNITE COMMITTEE,
THE E COMMITTEE AND UNITE EXTRAMURAL CALLED STRONG,
WHICH WILL BE FUNDED AFTER THE MAY COUNCIL REVIEW
IN A COUPLE OF WEEKS.
AND THESE ARE SMALL,
GONNA BE SMALL GRANTS
TO SUPPORT LESS-RESOURCED INSTITUTIONS
IN DEVELOPING WHAT THEY NEED,
AND DOING A SURVEY, AN ASSESSMENT,
A NEEDS ASSESSMENT OF WHAT THEY NEED
TO BUILD THEIR RESEARCH CAPACITY.
AND NOW IT'S NOT MOVING.
CAN WE ADVANCE THE SLIDE?
THERE WE GO, ALL RIGHT,
ONE MORE SLIDE.
ENCOURAGE YOU TO SEND US APPLICATIONS
FOR THE HEALTH DISPARITIES RESEARCH INSTITUTE.
THIS IS A PHOTO FROM THE 2023 EVENT.
WE WERE BACK IN PERSON.
WE HAVE ABOUT 200 APPLICANTS A YEAR.
WE SELECT ABOUT 50 EARLY-STAGE CAREER SCIENTISTS,
USUALLY SENIOR FELLOWS
OR EARLY ASSISTANT PROFESSORS.
OUR '24 HDRI.
THE APPLICATION PERIOD FOR '24 IS CLOSED,
IT'S USUALLY IN A LOVELY AUGUST WEEK IN BETHESDA,
WHERE YOU WANNA BE INDOORS DURING THE DAY.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR ATTENTION.
- THANK YOU VERY MUCH. (ATTENDEES CLAPPING)
- [MONICA] OKAY, ACTUALLY, NO,
IT'S DR. LORSCH'S NEXT.
OKAY, OUR NEXT PRESENTER IS DR. JON LORSCH,
WHO'S THE DIRECTOR
OF THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF GENERAL MEDICAL SCIENCES.
- THANK YOU VERY MUCH,
AND THANKS, ALL OF YOU, FOR COMING.
IT'S GREAT TO SEE YOU.
SO I'LL JUST GIVE YOU A VERY BRIEF OVERVIEW
OF NIGMS'S MISSION,
SIMILAR TO WHAT ELISEO DID,
AND THEN TELL YOU A FEW POINTS.
AND YOU'RE GONNA HEAR MORE ABOUT NIGMS PROGRAMS
THROUGHOUT THE DAY TODAY AND TOMORROW.
SO NIGMS HAS SEVERAL KEY PARTS OF ITS MISSION.
THE FIRST IS THAT WE ARE THE PRIMARY FUNDER
OF BASIC RESEARCH AT NIGMS,
SO FROM A SCIENTIFIC POINT OF VIEW,
I'M NOT SURE WHAT THAT, OH, YOU DON'T SEE IT ON THE SCREEN,
THERE'S A LITTLE ARROW THAT'S MOVING AROUND ON MY SCREEN.
WE ARE THE PRIMARY FUNDER OF BASIC RESEARCH AT IGMS,
SO THAT'S RESEARCH THAT TRIES TO UNDERSTAND
HOW BIOLOGICAL SYSTEMS OPERATE.
AND THE IDEA THERE IS THAT THAT LAYS THE FOUNDATION
FOR ALL ADVANCES IN DISEASE DIAGNOSIS,
TREATMENT, AND PREVENTION.
IN ADDITION TO THAT FOCUS
ON BASIC OR FOUNDATIONAL RESEARCH,
WE ALSO HAVE A FEW SPECIFIC CLINICAL AREAS
THAT WE'RE RESPONSIBLE FOR FUNDING RESEARCH IN.
AND THOSE ARE AREAS THAT SUPPORT MULTIPLE
OR THAT AFFECT MULTIPLE ORGAN SYSTEMS,
SO FOR EXAMPLE, ANESTHESIOLOGY RESEARCH,
CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY,
AND RESEARCH ON SEPSIS ARE AREAS THAT WE FUND.
BEYOND THE SCIENTIFIC PART OF OUR MISSION,
WE ALSO ARE THE LARGEST FUNDER OF TRAINING
OF THE NEXT GENERATION OF SCIENTISTS AT NIH
AND ALSO DEVELOPING RESEARCH CAPACITY BUILDING.
AND THAT LATTER INCLUDES THE IDEA PROGRAM
THAT I KNOW MANY OF YOU IN THE ROOM ARE FAMILIAR WITH.
SO THAT'S NIGMS'S MISSION AT A BROAD LEVEL.
PROBABLY THE MOST IMPORTANT THING WE CAN CONVINCE YOU OF
TO CONVINCE YOUR FACULTY OF
IS THAT WHEN THEY BEGIN THINKING
ABOUT APPLYING FOR FUNDING AT NIH,
WHETHER IT'S NIGMS OR ANOTHER INSTITUTE,
THE FIRST THING THEY DO
AFTER THEY'VE GOTTEN A GENERAL CONCEPT
OF WHAT IT IS THEY WANNA WORK ON
IS TO CONTACT A PROGRAM OFFICER.
AND EVERY INSTITUTE HAS SOMETHING
LIKE WHAT I'M SHOWING YOU HERE FOR NIGMS,
WHICH IS A WEBSITE THAT YOU CAN GO TO
OR YOUR FACULTY CAN GO TO
AND FIND A CONTACT, A PROGRAM OFFICER,
WHOSE AREA OF EXPERTISE OR AREA OF RESPONSIBILITY
IS SIMILAR TO WHAT IT IS THEY WANNA WORK ON.
WHETHER THAT'S A SCIENTIFIC AREA, AS SHOWN HERE,
OR TRAINING OR RESEARCH CAPACITY BUILDING.
SO THAT IS THE MOST IMPORTANT PROBABLY TAKE-HOME LESSON
FROM THIS WHOLE MEETING,
IS GET YOUR FACULTY TO CONTACT PROGRAM OFFICERS.
IT'S THEIR JOB
TO TRY TO HELP POTENTIAL APPLICANTS AND GRANTEES
TO TRY TO MAKE THEM SUCCESSFUL.
SO THAT REALLY IS WHAT WE ARE HIRING THEM TO DO
AND PAYING THEM TO DO.
THERE.
AND THIS IS JUST AN EXAMPLE
OF WHAT YOU'LL FIND IF YOU CLICK
ON ONE OF THOSE RESEARCH AREAS ON THE NIGMS WEBSITE.
THERE'LL BE A A PORTFOLIO THAT SAYS,
YOU KNOW, WHAT IS IN THIS RESEARCH AREA
AND THEN WHO THE PROGRAM OFFICER IS THAT'S RESPONSIBLE.
IT'LL HAVE THEIR EMAIL.
JUST SEND THEM AN EMAIL
OR HAVE YOUR FACULTY SEND THEM AN EMAIL
AND BEGIN THAT CONVERSATION.
THAT REALLY IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING YOU CAN DO
TO START YOUR FACULTY ON THE PATH TO SUCCESS
IN NIH FUNDING.
JUST TO END,
THESE ARE SOME OF THE PROGRAMS
YOU'RE GONNA HEAR ABOUT FROM NIGMS
OVER THE NEXT DAY AND A HALF.
YOU'LL BE HEARING ABOUT THE SUPPORT FOR RESEARCH EXCELLENCE
OR SURE PROGRAM.
WE ACTUALLY HAVE REPRESENTATIVES
FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY,
WHICH RUNS THE SURE RESOURCE CENTER,
WHICH WORKS WITH APPLICANTS AND INSTITUTIONS
TO TRY TO HELP THEM SUCCEED
IN OBTAINING FUNDING FROM THE SURE PROGRAM.
AND SO YOU'RE GONNA HEAR A LOT MORE ABOUT THAT.
I THINK THAT WILL BE BROADLY APPLICABLE
TO MOST OF THE INSTITUTIONS REPRESENTED HERE.
YOU'RE ALSO GONNA HEAR ABOUT
OUR MAXIMIZING INVESTIGATOR RESEARCH AWARD,
OR THE MIRA PROGRAM.
THIS IS A NEW PARADIGM FOR FUNDING FUNDAMENTAL RESEARCH
THAT NIGMS LAUNCHED IN 2015.
IT IS VERY DIFFERENT IN MANY RESPECTS
THAN TYPICAL R01 FUNDING
AND MAYBE MORE BENEFICIAL
TO THE KINDS OF WORK THAT SOME OF YOUR FACULTY WANT TO DO.
SO HOPEFULLY THAT WAS SOMETHING
THAT WILL APPEAL TO AT LEAST SOME OF YOU.
AND THEN FINALLY, YOU'RE GONNA HEAR
ABOUT NIGMS'S TRAINING WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT
AND DIVERSITY PROGRAMS,
WHICH MANY OF YOUR INSTITUTIONS ALREADY ARE FAMILIAR WITH.
SOME OF YOU HAVE GRANTS FROM OUR TWD DIVISION,
BUT I THINK WE COULD ACTUALLY INCREASE FUNDING
AT MANY OF YOUR INSTITUTIONS
IN THIS PARTICULAR AREA AS WELL.
SO THAT'S JUST A LITTLE ABOUT WHAT'S COMING UP,
AND I WILL TURN IT OVER TO EITHER BRUCE OR MARIE,
WHO'S EVER NEXT.
- [MONICA] I BELIEVE IT IS DR. BERNARD IS NEXT.
- OKAY. - SO,
THIS IS DR. MARIE BERNARD.
OH, THANK YOU. (ATTENDEES CLAPPING)
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
AND SHE IS OUR NIH OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OFFICER
FOR SCIENTIFIC WORKFORCE DIVERSITY.
- OKAY, SO,
WHY AM I SHOWING YOU THIS PICTURE,
AND WHAT'S THIS ACRONYM?
COSWD?
THAT'S HOW YOU PRONOUNCE MY TITLE,
I'M THE NIH CHIEF OFFICER OF SCIENTIFIC WORKFORCE DIVERSITY.
IT'S A BOUTIQUE POSITION.
YOU FIND EEO OFFICERS
AND DIVERSITY OFFICERS EVERY PLACE.
BUT THE THING THAT'S UNIQUE ABOUT THIS POSITION
IS THE FOCUS ON THE SCIENTIFIC WORKFORCE,
INTERNALLY AT NIH AND EXTERNALLY.
IT'S SOMETHING THAT CAME ABOUT
BECAUSE OF A STUDY THAT WAS PUBLISHED IN SCIENCE IN 2011
CALLED THE GINTHER GAP STUDY
THAT FOUND THAT THERE WAS A DISADVANTAGE
IN THE RECEIPT OF R01 GRANT FUNDING BY RACE AND ETHNICITY.
INITIALLY, ACROSS THE BOARD,
AFRICAN AMERICAN, BLACK, HISPANIC,
ASIAN, AMERICAN INDIAN, ALASKA NATIVE,
AND THEN WHEN THEY CONTROLLED FOR ALL SORTS OF FACTORS,
ENGLISH IS YOUR FIRST LANGUAGE,
WHERE YOU TRAIN,
WHERE YOU ARE WORKING,
HOW MANY PUBLICATIONS YOU HAVE,
ET CETERA, ET CETERA,
MUCH OF THAT DISAPPEARED
EXCEPT FOR PERSISTENT DISADVANTAGE
FOR AFRICAN AMERICANS, BLACKS.
BUT THEN NIH DIRECTOR FRANCIS COLLINS TURNED
TO HIS ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND SAID,
"WHAT SHOULD WE DO ABOUT THIS?"
AND THEY RECOMMENDED, AMONG OTHER THINGS,
ESTABLISHMENT OF THIS POSITION.
I'M VERY GRATEFUL TO DR. HANNAH VALANTINE,
WHO WAS THE FOUNDING COSWD WHO SERVED IN THAT ROLE
FROM 2014 TO SEPTEMBER 30TH, 2020.
I'M ALSO GRATEFUL THAT FRANCIS ASKED ME
TO BECOME THE ACTING COSWD IN OCTOBER 2020,
AND THEN I WAS SELECTED
THROUGH A NATIONAL COMPETITIVE SEARCH
AT THE END OF MAY OF 2021.
AND WHAT I'M GONNA SHOW YOU NEXT REALLY ENCAPSULATES
WHY IT'S IMPORTANT FOR THIS POSITION TO EXIST,
I HOPE, IF THE VIDEO WILL WORK.
ARE YOU ABLE TO?
AH, THANK YOU.
YOU MAY HAVE TO CLICK ONE MORE TIME TO MAKE THE VIDEO GO.
- [OBSERVER 1] IT IS SMOOTH AND SHARP.
IT IS A SPEAR.
- [OBSERVER 2] NO, IT IS A WALL.
- [OBSERVER 3] IT IS MOST DEFINITELY A FAN,
A HUGE FAN.
(GENTLE VOCAL MUSIC)
(GENTLE VOCAL MUSIC CONTINUES)
- [NARRATOR] SCIENCE IMPLICITLY RELIES
ON THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES.
THE MISSION OF THE OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OFFICER
FOR SCIENTIFIC WORKFORCE DIVERSITY
IS TO BRING VARIED POINTS OF VIEW
INTO THE WORK OF THE NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH
AND THE FIELD OF BIOMEDICAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCE RESEARCH.
A STUDY OF 2.5 MILLION SCIENTIFIC PAPERS SHOWS
THAT PEOPLE REPRESENTING DISTINCT BACKGROUNDS
PUBLISHED MORE WIDELY-CITED RESEARCH,
GENERATING IMPROVED SCIENCE,
WHICH LEADS TO GREATER DISCOVERIES.
BECAUSE GREAT MINDS THINK DIFFERENTLY,
BUT TOGETHER,
DIFFERENT MINDS ACCOMPLISH EVEN GREATER THINGS.
- SO I HAVE A TINY TEAM,
THERE ARE 12 OF US.
WE WORK ACROSS NIH,
WITH NIMHD,
NIGMS, CSR,
ALL THE 27 INSTITUTES AND CENTERS
TO CATALYZE AND LEVERAGE PROGRAMS
TO PROMOTE SCIENTIFIC WORKFORCE DIVERSITY.
AND I'M NOT GONNA SHOW YOU A LOT OF SLIDES ABOUT WHAT WE DO,
I'M GONNA ASK YOU TO ATTEND THE SESSIONS
THAT MY COLLEAGUES DR. JEAN SHIN
AND PAM TAMEZ WILL BE COORDINATING
IN THE NEXT COUPLE OF DAYS TO FIND MORE DETAILS.
BUT I WILL TALK ABOUT A COUPLE OF THINGS
THAT WE HAVE BEEN INVOLVED WITH.
THIS REPRESENTS THE NIH UNITE INITIATIVE,
WHICH IS A VERY AMBITIOUS PROGRAM
THAT GOT ESTABLISHED IN THE FALL OF 2020
WHEN WE WERE IN THE THROES OF THE COVID PANDEMIC
AND SAW DISPARATE MORBIDITY AND MORTALITY
BY RACE AND ETHNICITY,
RACIALIZED VIOLENCE.
AND WE STARTED INTERNALLY IN THE FALL OF 2020,
DECLARED WITH THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION
AND SOME OF THE EXECUTIVE OFFICERS THE AUDACIOUS GOAL
OF ENDING STRUCTURAL RACISM IN FEBRUARY OF 2021,
AND HAVE BEEN WORKING FOR THE LAST THREE AND A HALF YEARS
IN A PEOPLE-FOCUSED AND DATA-DRIVEN FASHION
ON HEALTH DISPARITY AND MINORITY HEALTH RESEARCH,
NOT AT ALL TO CIRCUMVENT THE ROLE OF THE NIMHD
BUT TO AUGMENT THE WORK.
WE'VE BEEN PUTTING A MIRROR TO OURSELVES INTERNALLY
TO MAKE SURE THAT WE AT NIH ARE DOING THINGS
THAT ARE APPROPRIATE
TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYONE'S VOICE IS HEARD
AND EVERYONE FEELS INCLUDED AND BELONGS.
AND WE'VE DEVELOPED THROUGH THE LEADERSHIP,
REALLY, OF DR. LORSCH AND THE E COMMITTEE OF UNITE
A NUMBER OF INITIATIVES THAT ARE EXTERNALLY FACING
THAT YOU WILL HEAR ABOUT OVER THE COURSE OF THE DAY,
SOME OF THEM WE MENTIONED ALREADY.
SO WE'VE BEEN DELIGHTED TO BE INVOLVED WITH THAT.
I'M REALLY HONORED TO BE A CO-LEAD
OF THE UNITE INITIATIVE SINCE IT WAS ESTABLISHED.
ONE OF THE OUTCOMES OF UNITE, AGAIN,
A RECOMMENDATION FOR THE UNITE E COMMITTEE
THAT DR. LORSCH HAS RECOMMENDED,
IS TARGETED OUTREACH
TO INSTITUTIONS THAT DON'T ENJOY A LOT
IN THE WAY OF NIH FUNDING.
SO WE ARE EVEN MORE DELIGHTED
TO BE PART OF THIS MEETING
THAT ALLOWS FOR THAT SORT OF OUTREACH.
WE'RE CALLING IT THE EARA INITIATIVE.
ENGAGEMENT AND ACCESS FOR RESEARCH-ACTIVE INSTITUTIONS.
AND WE'RE DEFINING RESEARCH-ACTIVE INSTITUTIONS
VERY MUCH IN KEEPING WITH THE WAY
IN WHICH SOME OF THE OTHER NOFOS
THAT ARE OUT THERE DEFINE RESOURCE-LIMITED,
BUT THIS IS NOT A NOFO.
THIS IS SIMPLY OUTREACH TO ENGAGE AND CONNECT
SO THAT INSTITUTIONS
THAT HAVE LESS THAN 25 MILLION ON AVERAGE
OF RESEARCH PROJECT GRANT, NOT TOTAL,
RESEARCH PROJECT GRANT FUNDING FROM NIH
IN THE PRIOR THREE YEARS CAN CONNECT WITH PROGRAM OFFICERS.
AS DR. LORSCH SAID,
IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT TO TALK TO THE PROGRAM OFFICERS
ABOUT RESEARCH IDEAS.
SO AGAIN, LOOK AT DIVERSITY.NIH.GOV
TO GET MORE OF A SENSE OF IT,
ATTEND THE SESSIONS WITH DR. SHIN AND DR. TAMEZ.
THANK YOU.
(ATTENDEES CLAPPING)
- THANK YOU, DR. BERNARD,
AND NEXT WE HAVE BRUCE REED,
WHO IS DEPUTY DIRECTOR
OF THE NIH CENTER FOR SCIENTIFIC REVIEW.
- MORNING.
IT'S GOOD TO BE HERE.
LET ME START BY FIRST CONVEYING THE REGRETS
OF CSR'S DIRECTOR NONI BYRNES,
SHE WAS SCHEDULED TO BE HERE THIS MORNING.
SHE HAS A COUGH THAT NONE OF YOU WANT,
AND SO I'LL BE FILLING IN FOR HER.
BUT SHE WAS LOOKING FORWARD TO HEARING FROM YOU.
I'LL BE BRIEF, JUST A COUPLE OF THINGS.
SO FIRST, WHAT IS CENTER FOR SCIENTIFIC REVIEW?
WE OVERSEE THE PEER REVIEW OF THE GREAT MAJORITY
OF NIH GRANT APPLICATIONS.
SO, IN FISCAL '23,
NIH GOT ALMOST,
WELL, IT GOT 79,000 GRANT APPLICATIONS.
CSR REVIEWED OVER 60,000 OF THOSE,
SO WE DO ABOUT THREE QUARTERS OF THE REVIEW
FOR THE ENTIRE NIH.
THE BULK OF WHAT WE DO IS R01S.
WE ALSO DO ALMOST ALL OF THE SMALL BUSINESS APPLICATIONS,
AND WE DO ALMOST ALL OF THE FELLOWSHIP APPLICATIONS.
BUT WE REVIEW APPLICATIONS OF ALL SORTS.
AND ONE OF THE THINGS TO JUST BE AWARE OF,
THERE'S ONLY ONE SET OF NIH POLICIES ON PEER REVIEW,
SO DOESN'T REALLY MATTER WHETHER IT'S IN CSR
OR IN THE INSTITUTES.
SO WHEN I TALK TO YOU ABOUT PEER REVIEW,
I'M SPEAKING REALLY ABOUT NIH POLICIES.
YEAH, IT'S A LARGE OPERATION.
1,200 MEETINGS,
YOU KNOW, ALMOST 20,000 REVIEWERS.
SO,
THERE'S A COUPLE OF MESSAGES
THAT I HOPE YOU REMEMBER AT THE END OF THESE TWO DAYS
AND CAN TAKE BACK TO YOUR FACULTY.
SO ONE OF THEM REALLY IS THAT CSR
AND NIH HAVE BEEN DOING A LOT TO CHANGE PEER REVIEW
TO MAKE IT STRONGER,
TO PROMOTE FAIRNESS,
TO LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD.
SO I'LL BE TALKING ABOUT THESE THINGS MORE THIS AFTERNOON,
BUT JUST TO TOUCH ON THEM BRIEFLY,
SOME OF THESE THINGS INCLUDE IMPLEMENTING BIAS AWARENESS
AND MITIGATION TRAINING,
CREATING AN AVENUE FOR REPORTING BIAS,
CHANGING THE WAY THAT REVIEW CRITERIA ARE DEFINED
AND IMPLEMENTED IN A WAY THAT MAKES THEM MORE FAIR,
CHANGING THE REVIEW CRITERIA IN THE APPLICATION ITSELF
FOR FELLOWSHIP APPLICATIONS,
DIVERSIFYING OUR REVIEW COMMITTEES,
AND MAKING REALLY CONCERTED EFFORTS
TO REACH OUT,
NOT JUST TO THE ORGANIZATIONS THAT SUBMIT THE BULK
OF THE BIG GRANT APPLICATIONS NOW,
BUT REACHING OUT TO SCHOOLS AND INSTITUTIONS
THAT DON'T SUBMIT SO MANY
AND THAT I THINK PROBABLY CAN BENEFIT MORE
FROM THE INFORMATION.
SO THAT LATTER POINT IS REALLY THE,
YEAH, I'LL TALK ABOUT THAT THIS AFTERNOON,
BUT THIS LATTER POINT,
JUST TO AMPLIFY REALLY WHAT JON AND MARIE SAID,
IS THAT WE'RE ACCESSIBLE.
SO JON SAID REACH OUT TO A PROGRAM OFFICER,
I'LL EXPAND THAT,
JUST REACH OUT TO THE NIH,
AND IF YOU'RE NOT SURE WHO AT THE NIH,
YOU CAN REACH OUT TO ME,
YOU CAN REACH OUT TO OUR COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR.
WE READ ALL OUR EMAILS,
WE RESPOND TO ALL OUR EMAILS.
WE'RE NOT THE RIGHT PERSON,
WE'LL GET YOU TO THE RIGHT PERSON.
SO I JUST WANNA SAY, YOU KNOW,
THAT HOPEFULLY TODAY IS NOT THE END OF OUR DISCUSSION,
BUT WE'RE AVAILABLE, YOU KNOW,
SO WHEN YOU NEED TO,
PLEASE REACH OUT.
SO, THANKS.
(ATTENDEES CLAPPING)
- THANK YOU VERY MUCH TO THE FOUR OF YOU
FOR THOSE OPENING COMMENTS.
THIS IS A DIFFERENT TYPE OF MEETING
THAN WHAT NIH USUALLY HAS IN TERMS OF,
THAT THE GOAL IS NOT TO GIVE YOU SCIENTIFIC PRESENTATIONS
AND DISCUSS THE SCIENCE,
THIS IS REALLY AN OPPORTUNITY FOR INTERACTION,
FOR INPUT,
TO HAVE SOME OF YOUR QUESTIONS ANSWERED,
FOR BI-DIRECTIONAL COMMUNICATION.
AND THIS MEETING REALLY IS THE BRAINCHILD
OF THOSE THAT YOU SEE SITTING HERE,
SO I WANNA THANK YOU VERY MUCH
FOR THIS IDEA TO HAVE THIS MEETING
AND RECOGNIZING THE IMPORTANCE OF DOING SO.
SO BEFORE I OPEN IT UP TO YOU TO ASK QUESTIONS
AND TO HAVE MORE OF A DIALOGUE,
I DO HAVE A QUESTION THAT I'D LIKE ALL OF YOU TO ANSWER,
IF YOU COULD, FOR A COUPLE MINUTES.
YOU KNOW, WOULD YOU SHARE WITH US A FEW THOUGHTS
ON WHAT YOU WERE THINKING ABOUT AT THE INCEPTION,
THE CONCEPT OF THIS MEETING,
AND WHAT YOU WOULD LIKE THIS AUDIENCE,
ESPECIALLY, YOU KNOW,
THAT WE HAVE INSTITUTIONAL LEADERS WITH US TODAY,
TO THINK ABOUT OVER THE NEXT DAY AND A HALF
AND WHAT YOU HOPE THEY TAKE AWAY FROM THIS EXPERIENCE.
WE CAN START WHEREVER,
MAYBE ELISEO, WOULD YOU LIKE TO START?
- SO,
YOU KNOW, NIH FUNDING,
NIH, A $50 BILLION AGENCY,
WOULD GIVE AWAY AT LEAST 80% OF OUR BUDGET,
SO YOU DO THE MATH.
MOST OF THAT MONEY GOES TO 20 INSTITUTIONS,
50 INSTITUTIONS MAYBE,
ACROSS THE COUNTRY.
THAT'S A REALITY.
I MEAN, WE'VE KNOWN THIS FOR A LONG TIME.
I'M A PRODUCT OF ONE OF THOSE INSTITUTIONS,
I WAS AT UCSF FOR ALL MY PROFESSIONAL CAREER.
BUT FROM THE NATIONAL STAGE,
IT IS SO CRITICALLY IMPORTANT
THAT WE DEVELOP AND SUPPORT RESEARCH CAPACITY
FOR THOSE INSTITUTIONS THAT YOU REPRESENT HERE
AND GEOGRAPHICALLY DISTRIBUTED ACROSS THE ENTIRE COUNTRY.
THAT'S NOT SO OBVIOUS
TO THOSE SITTING IN THE TOP-NOTCH INSTITUTIONS,
AND IT'S IMPORTANT THAT THEY DEVELOP
AND SUPPORT THE DIFFERENT KINDS OF RESEARCH
THAT ARE SUPPORTED.
SO I THINK THAT IS WHAT DRIVES THIS EFFORT,
THAT IS WHAT DRIVES OUR EFFORT AT NMHD,
TO CREATE INITIATIVES
THAT ARE REALLY TARGETED EITHER GEOGRAPHICALLY,
POPULATION-WISE OR INSTITUTIONAL-WISE.
I WILL SAY THAT IN OUR R01 APPLICATIONS,
WE INFREQUENTLY SEE APPLICATIONS COMING IN
FROM INSTITUTIONS THAT I DEFINED EARLIER AS,
YOU KNOW, LESS THAN $50 MILLION OVER THREE YEARS,
WHICH IS ALREADY A HIGH BAR
COMPARED TO MANY OF YOUR INSTITUTIONS HERE.
AND I THINK WE NEED TO CONTINUE TO WORK AT THIS
AND PROVIDE AS MUCH SUPPORT AS POSSIBLE.
I WANT TO REITERATE WHAT JON SAID
ABOUT CALL PROGRAM OFFICERS.
IT IS THEIR JOB.
AND DO NOT HESITATE TO REACH OUT
TO DR. WEBB HOOPER OR ME
IF SOMEONE ISN'T BEING RESPONSIVE,
WE CAN USUALLY GET THEM TO PAY ATTENTION.
THANKS.
- I THINK IT'S GONNA END UP BEING DITTO, DITTO, DITTO.
AND I LIKE TO TALK ABOUT THE FACT
THAT I HAVE A LOT OF GRAY HAIR.
I HAD ANOTHER LIFE BEFORE I CAME TO NIH,
AND THAT LIFE WAS AS A DEPARTMENT CHAIR
AT UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA COLLEGE OF MEDICINE.
AND I WOULD TELL MY FACULTY IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT
TO MAKE OUTREACH TO THE PROGRAM OFFICERS.
IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT.
AND, YOU KNOW,
PEOPLE WOULD HEAR THAT AND BE HESITANT.
BUT NOW THAT I'VE BEEN AT NIH FOR A WHILE,
I CAN'T SAY IT STRONGLY ENOUGH.
IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT.
I SPENT ABOUT 13 YEARS
AS THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR AT AN INSTITUTE,
AND I GOT TO SEE VERY FREQUENTLY
THAT WHEN THERE WERE GRANTS THAT WERE ALL SCORED EQUALLY,
IT WAS A PROGRAM OFFICER
WHO WOULD BRING SOMETHING TO OUR ATTENTION
BECAUSE THEY HAPPENED TO KNOW THAT SCIENTIST.
SO I WOULD REALLY ENCOURAGE YOU AS LEADERS
TO HAVE YOUR FACULTY TAKE ADVANTAGE
OF WHAT DR. PEREZ-STABLE SAID,
WHAT DR. LORSCH SAID, WHAT DR. REED SAID.
LOOK AT OUR WEBSITE ABOUT THE EARA INITIATIVE,
AND WE'RE THERE TO HELP AS WELL,
BECAUSE THOSE CONVERSATIONS ARE REALLY IMPORTANT.
THERE'S NO QUESTION,
FACULTY NEED TO HAVE PROTECTED TIME AND RESOURCES
TO DEVELOP A GOOD PROPOSAL,
TO DEVELOP A GOOD ABSTRACT AND SPECIFIC AIMS
IN ORDER TO MOVE FORWARD.
BUT THOSE CONVERSATIONS,
THAT INTERACTION IS INVALUABLE.
SO IF THERE'S ANYTHING ELSE THAT YOU TAKE FROM THIS MEETING,
THAT'LL BE SOMETHING.
- I'LL SAY DITTO AS WELL, I THINK,
ELISEO AND MARIE PUT IT VERY WELL.
ONE OF THE REASONS NIGMS HAS BEEN SO FOCUSED
ON RESEARCH CAPACITY BUILDING AND BUILDING DIVERSITY
ACROSS ALL DIMENSIONS OF OUR PORTFOLIO
IS THAT BY NOT HAVING THAT KIND OF DIVERSITY
AND BY NOT HAVING RESEARCH GOING ON THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY
AND HAVING THIS DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDING
THAT ELISEO TALKED ABOUT
THAT'S VERY SKEWED TO A FEW INSTITUTIONS,
WE ARE LOSING BOTH TALENT
AND WE'RE LOSING IDEAS.
AND THAT IS VERY DETRIMENTAL TO SCIENCE
AND VERY DETRIMENTAL TO THE COUNTRY.
AND SO BY FUNDING MORE INSTITUTIONS SUCH AS YOURS,
WE WILL NOT LOSE THAT TALENT,
THERE'S TALENT EVERYWHERE IN THE COUNTRY,
NOT JUST ON THE COASTS OR IN CERTAIN,
YOU KNOW, MORE POPULOUS OR WEALTHY STATES,
AND WE'LL NOT LOSE IDEAS
THAT NEED TO BE EXPLORED AND TESTED
AND COULD BE THE NEXT GREAT ADVANCE IN MEDICINE.
THE OTHER THING I'LL JUST MENTION
IN TERMS OF WHY WE THOUGHT WE SHOULD HAVE THIS MEETING
IS THAT NIH DOES HAVE A LOT OF PROGRAMS
TO SUPPORT INSTITUTIONS SUCH AS YOURS,
BUT FREQUENTLY WE FIND
THAT INSTITUTIONS DON'T KNOW ABOUT THOSE PROGRAMS.
AND THEREFORE, ONE OF THE THINGS WE NEED TO DO,
AND THIS IS PART OF WHAT THE EARA INITIATIVE,
FOR INSTANCE, IS ABOUT,
IS TO MAKE INSTITUTIONS AWARE
OF WHAT IS AVAILABLE TO THEM,
WHAT IS BEING TARGETED TO THAT PARTICULAR INSTITUTION TYPE
SO THAT THEY CAN MAKE USE OF IT
AND PUT IN THOSE APPLICATIONS,
LIKE ELISEO SAID.
WE CAN'T FUND WHAT WE DON'T RECEIVE AS AN APPLICATION,
SO WE NEED TO GET APPLICATIONS FROM YOU
SO THAT WE CAN FUND THEM.
- ALL RIGHT, SO,
A THIRD DITTO, BUT JUST A COUPLE OF THINGS.
SO,
FIRST, I'VE ALREADY TOLD YOU THE TWO MESSAGES
THAT I WANT YOU TO TAKE HOME
AND (CHUCKLES) GET THE WORD OUT ON.
ONE IS THAT PEER REVIEW IS CHANGING
TO LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD,
AND THE OTHER IS THAT WE'RE ACCESSIBLE.
ON THIS POINT OF MAKING THE PLAYING FIELD MORE ACCESSIBLE
OR MORE, YOU KNOW,
MAKE IT MORE, LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD,
WE DO RECOGNIZE THAT, AS ELISEO SAID,
YOU KNOW, THE VAST MAJORITY OF GRANTS COME
FROM A SMALL NUMBER OF INSTITUTIONS,
AND IN THE REVIEW PROCESS,
THE PLAYING FIELD IS NOT ALWAYS LEVEL, SO.
AND THE CONSEQUENCE OF THAT IS,
WHAT JON SAID,
IS THAT WHEN IT'S NOT LEVEL,
YOU MISS OUT ON IDENTIFYING THE BEST,
AND THAT'S REALLY WHAT THE NIH NEEDS TO DO,
WANTS TO DO.
SO WE HOPE THAT THE CHANGES THAT ARE COMING
DO MAKE IT MORE FAIR
AND MAKE IT A MORE ACCESSIBLE PROCESS FOR EVERYBODY
BUT ALSO BENEFIT THE NIH
IN TERMS OF, YOU KNOW, IDENTIFYING THE BEST SCIENCE.
AND THEN THE FINAL THING I'D SAY IS,
YOU KNOW, SO I HAVE IDEAS ABOUT
WHAT I CAN SAY THAT MIGHT BE USEFUL,
BUT I'D REALLY LIKE TO HEAR FROM YOU.
THAT'S ONE OF THE BENEFITS OF HAVING YOU ALL HERE.
AND SO I REALLY LOOK FORWARD
TO YOUR QUESTIONS AND YOUR COMMENTS,
YOUR THOUGHTS ABOUT THIS.
- THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH FOR THOSE COMMENTS.
SO, I WOULD LIKE TO INVITE YOU
TO ASK QUESTIONS BASED ON THE THINGS YOU'VE HEARD
OR OTHER RELEVANT TOPICS.
IF YOU WOULD JUST RAISE YOUR HAND,
I'LL ACKNOWLEDGE YOU,
AND THEN ASK YOU TO, RIGHT,
TO USE YOUR MICROPHONE
AND ALSO JUST INTRODUCE YOURSELF,
YOUR NAME, YOUR INSTITUTION
WHEN YOU START,
WHEN YOU, YOU KNOW, START YOUR QUESTION.
PLEASE.
- HI.
OOH, IT'S LOUDER THAN I THOUGHT.
(MONICA CHUCKLES)
PAUL MURPHY, UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY.
I HAVE A QUESTION FOR BRUCE
ABOUT THE NEW PEER REVIEW PROGRAM.
I THINK, FIRST OF ALL,
I THINK IT'S A GREAT IDEA.
THINGS LIKE REDUCING REPUTATIONAL BIAS
AND BIAS AGAINST CERTAIN INSTITUTIONS IS TERRIFIC.
I WAS JUST CURIOUS WHAT ARE THE KIND OF LONG-TERM PLANS
FOR EVALUATING HOW WELL THAT PROGRAM IS WORKING.
- SO,
SO WE WILL EVALUATE THIS IN MULTIPLE WAYS.
THE FIRST WAY IS BY WATCHING WHAT HAPPENS
IN PEER REVIEW MEETINGS, RIGHT?
YOU CAN, IF YOU GO IN.
SO, JUST TO BE,
JUST TO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY IS ON THE SAME PAGE, RIGHT?
WHEN WE REFER TO REPUTATIONAL BIAS,
SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE PHENOMENON
WHEN GRANTS THAT COME FROM BIG NAME GET A PASS
AND THOSE THAT COME
FROM A LESSER NAME GET SCRUTINIZED EXTRA CAREFULLY,
AND NEITHER ONE OF THOSE IS FAIR, RIGHT?
AND SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO REDUCE
WITH SOME OF THESE PEER REVIEW CHANGES.
SO HOW DO WE EVALUATE IT?
WELL, ONE IS THAT WE WATCH
WHAT HAPPENS IN PEER REVIEW MEETINGS.
YOU CAN SEE THE PRESENCE OF THIS IN MEETINGS NOW.
WE'LL BE WATCHING TO MAKE SURE THAT IT DIMINISHES.
YOU CAN LOOK AT IT IN CRITIQUES,
YOU CAN LOOK AT IT IN SUMMARY STATEMENTS.
AGAIN, WE WANNA SEE IT REDUCED.
AND THEN OVER TIME,
ONE WOULD EXPECT
THAT THIS SORT OF HIGHLY SKEWED DISTRIBUTION
OF WHERE APPLICATIONS COME FROM
AND WHERE THE SUCCESSFUL ONES ARE LEVELS OUT A BIT
AND THAT YOU GET SOME CHANGES
AND THAT YOU GET SOME
AND THAT IF YOU LOOK AT WHO GETS SCORED WELL
THAT YOU DO SEE A SHIFT TOWARDS PEOPLE
WHO COME INTO IT WITH NOT SUCH BIG NAMES
AND FROM NOT THE VERY ELITE R1 INSTITUTIONS.
- [MONICA] THANK YOU.
YES, PLEASE.
- SHAWN HOLT, WINSTON-SALEM STATE UNIVERSITY.
I THINK THE BIAS TRAINING
AND THE SIMPLIFIED REVIEW FRAMEWORK
AND THE DIVERSIFYING THE REVIEW COMMITTEES,
I THINK THOSE ARE ALL REALLY GOOD THINGS,
BUT THE IDEA OF REDISTRIBUTING SOME OF THE FUNDING
OR A LOT OF THE FUNDING,
HOW DO YOU DO THAT?
THAT'S A GOOD START, BUT HOW DO YOU DO THAT?
INSTITUTIONS LIKE OURS LACK TIME
WHEN PEOPLE ARE TEACHING 12 CREDIT HOURS A SEMESTER.
WHERE DOES THAT COME FROM?
IS THERE SUPPORT MECHANISMS FOR RESEARCH CAPACITY
AND GRANTS OF THAT NATURE THAT MIGHT BE,
I DON'T WANNA GIVE YOU THE ANSWER,
BUT JUST SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES
THAT MIGHT SPEAK TO A SHIFT FOR INSTITUTIONS LIKE OURS.
- YEAH, SO I THINK THAT'S AN EXCELLENT QUESTION.
AND AS I MENTIONED,
THERE ARE ALREADY A NUMBER OF PROGRAMS,
BUT IT COULD BE THAT THERE ARE ADDITIONAL ONES
THAT ARE NEEDED.
AND SO THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS
WE'RE HOPING TO HEAR FROM YOU.
SO THERE ARE PROGRAMS SUCH AS SURE,
WHICH YOU'LL HEAR MORE ABOUT,
THAT SUPPORT FACULTY TO DO RESEARCH WITH STUDENTS
AT LESSER-RESOURCE INSTITUTIONS,
AND YOU'LL, YOU KNOW,
YOU'LL HEAR MORE ABOUT THE DETAILS,
BUT SOME OF THAT CAN PAY FOR SUMMER,
YOU KNOW, TIME, ET CETERA.
SUMMER SALARY TIME.
WE ALSO ARE WORKING ON A PROGRAM
THAT SHOULD BE OUT RELATIVELY SOON CALLED BRISPAD,
WHICH WILL SUPPORT INSTITUTIONS TO BUILD RESEARCH CAPACITY
BOTH AT THE ADMINISTRATIVE LEVEL,
SO IN TERMS OF SPONSORED PROGRAMS OFFICES,
WHICH WE KNOW IS, YOU KNOW,
A MAJOR DISPARITY FROM AN INSTITUTION
THAT GETS LOTS OF GRANTS TO ONE THAT DOESN'T,
AND WILL ALSO SUPPORT FACULTY
IN THE SORTS OF THINGS YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT
IN TERMS OF PILOT PROJECT TIME,
MAYBE COURSE BUYOUT TIME,
THINGS OF THAT NATURE.
SO THOSE ARE JUST EXAMPLES.
THERE ARE OTHER PROGRAMS
THAT CAN HELP SUPPORT THOSE KINDS OF GOALS
THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.
BUT PART OF THE KEY IS THAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR WAYS
TO CARVE OUT SUPPORT FOR INSTITUTIONS,
YOU KNOW, THAT ARE MAYBE MORE FOCUSED ON UNDERGRADUATES
THAT DON'T GET AS MUCH NIH SUPPORT,
AND THAT PROTECTS A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF MONEY
AND MOVES IT, YOU KNOW, FROM,
IF YOU WILL, THE VERY LARGE INSTITUTIONS
TOWARDS INSTITUTIONS REPRESENTED IN THIS ROOM.
- [MONICA] THANK YOU, SO WE'LL START HERE,
AND THEN WE'LL GO TO THE GENTLEMAN.
PLEASE, YES.
- HI, SO MELISSA HARRINGTON,
DELAWARE STATE UNIVERSITY.
ONE THING THAT I WAS REALLY EXCITED ABOUT THIS DIALOGUE
AND TO SHARE WITH YOU IS A HOPE
THAT AS YOU DEVELOP THESE PROGRAMS OR LOOK AT THEM
THAT THE PROGRAMS THAT ARE TARGETED AT THESE INSTITUTIONS
WITH SMALLER RESEARCH PORTFOLIOS
AND EMERGING RESEARCH INSTITUTIONS
DON'T SORT OF PERPETUATE SOME STRUCTURAL INEQUITIES.
AND I'LL GIVE, SO ONE EXAMPLE,
SO FOR AN R01,
THERE'S NO REQUIREMENT THAT THE PI DEVOTE 50% OF THEIR TIME.
THERE'S NO REQUIREMENT
THAT THEY BE A TENURE-TRACK FACULTY MEMBER THERE,
AND SOME OTHER,
THERE'S NO REQUIREMENT
THAT THEY BE A PERMANENT RESIDENT, RIGHT?
IT'S JUST ABOUT SUPPORTING THE SCIENCE.
AND THAT MODEL HAS BEEN INCREDIBLY SUCCESSFUL
FOR GROWING RESEARCH AT RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES
BECAUSE IT'S SO FLEXIBLE.
BUT THEN THERE'S A REALLY KIND OF PATERNALISTIC
AND, YOU KNOW, A NONEQUIVALENT APPROACH
AT INSTITUTIONS LIKE MINE,
I'M FROM DELAWARE STATE UNIVERSITY,
IT'S AN HBCU.
OKAY, SO IT'S LIKE, OKAY,
FOR YOU GUYS TO GET MONEY,
IT'S ONLY TENURE-TRACK PEOPLE ARE ELIGIBLE,
ONLY PERMANENT RESIDENTS, RIGHT?
THERE'S SOME INITIATIVES LIKE SCORE AND NOW SURE
WHERE OUR FACULTY, REALLY,
THEY CAN'T APPLY
BECAUSE MY INSTITUTION CANNOT GIVE 50%.
YOU KNOW, THEY WOULD HAVE TO PAY FOR THAT 50% TIME
AS PART OF THE BUDGET,
AND THEN THAT MAKES THE PROPOSAL REALLY UNCOMPETITIVE
IF IT'S A $100,000 GRANT
AND $60,000 OF IT IS GOING TO PAY THE PI'S TIME.
AND SO I'M HOPING THAT WHEN YOU GUYS PREPARE,
KIND OF ARE THINKING ABOUT HOW TO MAKE PROGRAMS
THAT ARE REALLY GONNA HAVE AN IMPACT,
I THINK YOU WANNA LOOK TO YOU'RE NOT CREATING CONDITIONS
THAT ARE, YOU KNOW, DIFFERENT
FOR THESE EMERGING INSTITUTIONS THAT ARE FOR THE R01S
THAT ARE GONNA MAKE IT HARDER FOR THEM
TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THAT AND GROW THEIR OWN PROGRAMS.
WE'RE STRUGGLING WITH THE TENURE TRACK,
SO OUR TENURED OR TENURE-TRACK FACULTY ARE VERY SENIOR.
THEY DON'T HAVE THE BACKGROUND OR THE CREDENTIALS,
REALLY, TO BE COMPETITIVE,
TO BE TERRIBLY COMPETITIVE,
AND NOT A LOT OF INTEREST IN SOME OF IT,
IN PURSUING RESEARCH.
OUR INSTITUTION IS NOT GROWING THE NUMBER
OF TENURE-TRACK FACULTY,
AS MOST INSTITUTIONS ARE, RIGHT?
WE ARE BRINGING IN,
YOU KNOW, KIND OF RESEARCH FACULTY,
BUT THEN THEY'RE ONLY ELIGIBLE FOR R15, R01,
THERE'S NO TRAINING WHEELS FOR THEM,
AND I'M HOPING THAT THAT CAN BE SOMETHING
THAT YOU GUYS COULD LOOK AT.
- I THINK THOSE ARE EXCELLENT POINTS.
YOU KNOW, IT'S IMPORTANT FOR US
TO UNDERSTAND THE SHIFTING ENVIRONMENT
BECAUSE SOME OF THE THINGS THAT YOU MENTIONED,
YOU KNOW, THAT ARE IN THESE FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES
WERE THERE TO TRY TO NOT INCENTIVIZE,
YOU KNOW, HIRING LOTS OF ADJUNCT FACULTY, FOR EXAMPLE.
BUT IF THERE'S NOW A MOVE TOWARDS NON-TENURE
BUT RESEARCH-TRACK FACULTY,
THAT MAY BE SOMETHING WE NEED TO THINK ABOUT
IN TERMS OF TWEAKING THE LANGUAGE.
- SO, THANK YOU FOR THAT.
YOU KNOW, FROM MY PERSPECTIVE,
AND THIS, AGAIN, VARIES BY INSTITUTE IN SOME EXTENT,
I DON'T SEE RESTRICTIONS OF THAT TYPE IN OUR GRANT PROGRAM.
- [MELISSA] YOURS IS THE ONE THAT DOESN'T. (CHUCKLES)
- IN FACT, IT GOES THE OTHER WAY.
WE WANNA MAKE SURE THAT PIS ARE MINIMAL SUPPORT EFFORT
SO THAT THEY'RE ACTUALLY DOING THE PROJECTS
AS OPPOSED TO DELEGATING,
OR THEY'RE SO BIG.
SO ONE OF THE ISSUES WE AGREE ON,
AT LEAST JON AND I AGREE ON,
IS THAT PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATORS WHO HAVE X NUMBER OF GRANTS
SHOULDN'T BE COMING BACK IN WITH ANOTHER R01.
NOW, THE GENERAL RULE OF THUMB WE'VE USED
IS THREE R01S AT ALL ACROSS THE AGENCY,
AND SAY, WELL, DO YOU REALLY NEED A FOURTH?
AND THE IDEA IS THAT THEN THAT GETS REDISTRIBUTED
TO OTHER INVESTIGATORS WHO ARE NOT PIS.
AND CERTAINLY I SAW THAT FUNCTIONING
IN MY TIME AT UCSF WHEN, YOU KNOW,
WHEN MORE, YOU KNOW,
UP AND COMING RESEARCH FACULTY WERE CROWDED OUT.
I THINK THE K PROGRAM IS LIMITED
TO US CITIZENS, RIGHT?
AND SO, EXCEPT FOR THE K99, R00,
SO, BUT I'M NOT FAMILIAR
THAT OTHERS HAVE OTHER RESTRICTIONS.
IN FACT, RIC DOESN'T FUND INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMS VERY
MUCH,
IF AT ALL.
BUT ACROSS THE NIH,
THE INTERNATIONAL SCIENTISTS CAN APPLY FOR NIH FUNDING.
AND THEN JUST TO COMMENT ON THE PREVIOUS ONE,
ONE OF THE STRATEGIES, I THINK,
TO BUILD RESEARCH CAPACITY
IS TO BE ABLE TO INVEST IN LIMITED
BUT, YOU KNOW, VERY SYNERGISTIC INFRASTRUCTURE.
ON THE ONE HAND, YOU COULD SAY,
WELL, YOU NEED A GRANTS MANAGEMENT SHOP
THAT CAN ACTUALLY HANDLE MONEY WHEN IT COMES IN
AND SPENDS IT AND ALLOCATES IT APPROPRIATELY.
THAT'S A GIVEN THAT IN THE HIGH-END INSTITUTIONS
WE TOOK FOR GRANTED.
AND I'M SEEING HOW THAT CAN BE A CHALLENGE
FOR SOME OF THE INSTITUTIONS WE FUND.
ON THE OTHER HAND,
THERE'S ALSO THE IDEA OF SUPPORTING A FACULTY,
A RESEARCHER WHO ACTS
SYNERGISTICALLY TO CREATE MORE RESEARCH.
IN MY EXPERIENCE, YOU KNOW,
I'M A CLINICIAN, RIGHT?
SO YOU SEE MY INITIAL JOB,
EVEN IN A TENURE TRACK,
WAS, YOU KNOW, I WAS IN CLINIC EITHER SEEING PATIENTS
OR TEACHING 50% OF THE TIME.
SO I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S EQUIVALENT
TO 12 CREDITS A SEMESTER,
BUT, YOU KNOW,
YOU HAD A LOT OF,
AND THAT WAS A LONG TIME AGO,
SO IT'S A DIFFERENT ERA.
BUT IF YOU BRING IN A FULL-TIME RESEARCHER,
WHETHER IT BE A BEHAVIORAL OR SOCIAL SCIENTIST,
A BASIC SCIENTIST,
DEPENDING ON YOUR INITIATIVE,
SOMEONE WHO CAN THEN ACT
AS A COMMON-THREAD FLASHPOINT
TO BUILD RESEARCH WITH OTHER FACULTY,
I THINK THAT'S ANOTHER STRATEGY THAT COULD WORK.
IN OUR CASE,
IT WAS EITHER A BEHAVIORAL SCIENTIST,
A STATISTICIAN, A METHODOLOGIST,
SOMEONE OF THAT TYPE
THAT WOULD HELP THE CLINICIAN SCIENTISTS
REALLY PARTNER AND DEVELOP BETTER APPLICATIONS TO THE NIH.
- [MONICA] THANK YOU, YES, PLEASE.
WE'LL TAKE HIM,
AND THEN WE'LL COME OVER YOU.
THANK YOU. - QUINCY QUICK,
THE ASSOCIATE VICE PRESIDENT
FOR RESEARCH AND SPONSORED PROGRAMS
AT TENNESSEE STATE UNIVERSITY.
SO MY QUESTION IS FOR DR. REED
AND, I THINK, DR. BYRNES,
WHO IS NOT HERE, FROM THE CENTER FOR SCIENTIFIC REVIEW,
AS IT RELATES TO THE EARLY CAREER REVIEWER PROGRAM.
LISTEN, FOR ME, AFTER SITTING ON STUDY SECTION
FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS,
STILL SITTING ON STUDY SECTION.
THIS PROCESS OF UNDERSTANDING HOW TO DO GOOD SCIENCE
AS IT RELATES TO WHAT NIH EXPECTATIONS ARE
REALLY KIND OF, TO ME, BEGINS IN THAT ROOM
AND GETTING ACCESS TO THOSE REVIEW PANELS
AND THOSE STUDY SECTIONS.
ONE OF THE PROBLEMS
IS THAT THE EARLY CAREER REVIEWER
PROGRAM PUTS A STIPULATION
THAT YOU HAVE TO BE AN ASSISTANT PROFESSOR.
AND THE ASSISTANT PROFESSOR LEVELS AT OUR INSTITUTION
AND ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR LEVELS
AT OUR INSTITUTION IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT
THAN THEY ARE AT ONE INSTITUTION.
SO YOU HAVE PEOPLE KIND OF REENGAGING SOMETIMES
AT THE ASSOCIATE LEVEL IN THE RESEARCH ACTIVITY
AND SOMETIMES EVEN AT THE PROFESSOR.
BUT WHAT THEY'RE MISSING AND NEVER GOTTEN ACCESS TO
IS TO BE ABLE TO SEE WHAT THE EXPECTATION IS
IN THOSE STUDY SECTIONS.
SO IF THAT CRITERIA CONTINUES TO REMAIN,
AND I KNOW IT'S BROAD ACROSS ALL INSTITUTIONS,
IT'S CHALLENGING BECAUSE YOU KIND OF HAVE
THOSE CRITERIA THERE FOR THE R1
ALL THE WAY DOWN TO THE, YOU KNOW, R2 INSTITUTIONS,
YOU PUT A CEILING ON THE FACULTY MEMBERS
AND RESEARCHERS AT OUR INSTITUTION,
TO NO FAULT OF ANYBODY, REALLY,
BUT THAT'S JUST THE NATURE OF IT.
SO I'M JUST WONDERING IF SOME WAY
IT COULD BE RESTRUCTURED AND REVISED
AS NIH CONTINUES TO TRY
TO REVISIT DIVERSITY, EQUITY, AND INCLUSION
AND ALL THESE KINDA THINGS.
GIVING ACCESS, THAT MIGHT BE A WAY TO DO IT.
- YEAH, THANKS FOR THAT QUESTION.
THAT'S A GOOD POINT, AND SO,
YOU KNOW, THE EARLY CAREER REVIEWER PROGRAM IS STRUCTURED
WITH THE GOAL OF GIVING PEOPLE THE ADVANTAGE
OF STUDY SECTION SERVICE
AT A POINT OF THEIR CAREER
THAT IT'LL REALLY BENEFIT THEM.
AND YOU DON'T WANT
THOSE EARLY CAREER PEOPLE CROWDED OUT
BY PEOPLE LATER IN THEIR CAREER,
BUT I HEAR YOUR POINT
THAT THAT STRUCTURE MAY NOT BE THE SAME
ACROSS ALL INSTITUTIONS.
AND SO I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING FOR US TO THINK ABOUT MORE.
I WILL SAY THAT
IN IMPLEMENTING THOSE STANDARDS NOW,
THERE ACTUALLY IS SOME FLEXIBILITY ABOUT IT.
BUT I TAKE THE POINT,
IT'S A GOOD ONE TO THINK ABOUT
HOW THAT COULD BE SORT OF CODIFIED
IN A WAY THAT WE COULD ROLL IT OUT
AND PEOPLE COULD BROADLY UNDERSTAND WHAT IT IS
AND WE COULD CONSISTENTLY APPLY IT
WHILE STILL MEETING THE GOALS, AS I SAY,
OF REALLY GIVING PEOPLE THE BENEFIT OF STUDY SECTION SERVICE
AT A POINT THAT IT REALLY COULD BENEFIT THEIR CAREER.
- [MONICA] THANK YOU, YES.
- HARRIET HOWARD-LEE BLOCK,
PRAIRIE VIEW A&M UNIVERSITY.
AND FIRST OF ALL,
I THINK THIS IS JUST EXCELLENT
THAT WE HAVE BEEN ASKED TO COME
AND HAVE THIS TYPE OF DIALOGUE,
BUT I DO THINK THAT FROM A CULTURAL PERSPECTIVE
THAT WHEN YOU THINK OF PEOPLE,
AND I'M GOING TO USE THE WORD JUDGE,
THAT ARE JUDGING YOU AND REVIEWING YOU,
A LOT OF TIMES
IF THEY DON'T REALLY UNDERSTAND THE CULTURAL BACKGROUND
OF WHAT THEY ARE LOOKING AT
AND NO ONE HAS PUT IT IN THEIR FACE,
AND I'LL GIVE AN EXAMPLE.
PRAIRIE VIEW WAS STARTED WITH THE INTENT OF TEACHING.
WE WERE NOT PUT IN PLACE TO DO THE RESEARCH.
AND IT GOES BACK TO US
AS A PEOPLE OF COLOR NOT HAVING ANYWHERE
TO GET EDUCATED BUT AT A PLACE
THAT WOULD BE CALLED A HISTORICALLY BLACK COLLEGE
AND UNIVERSITY.
SO WITH THAT BEING IN PLACE
AND FROM A HISTORICAL STANDPOINT,
IF ONE DOES NOT UNDERSTAND THAT,
THEN HOW IS ONE GOING TO HAVE THE ABILITY
TO BE A LITTLE UNDERSTANDING
IF WE HAVE NOT HAD THE FACILITIES TO DO CERTAIN THINGS?
IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE MINDSET
AND THAT THE INTELLECT IS NOT THERE,
BUT THE PERSON THAT IS REVIEWING IT,
THAT MIGHT NOT HAVE EVER BEEN A THOUGHT IN THEIR MINDS
BECAUSE OF HOW THEY CAME UP
IN THE EDUCATIONAL ARENA AND ACADEMIC ARENA.
SO I WOULD HOPE
THAT WHEN THE PEER REVIEW COMMITTEES ARE SET UP
THAT AT SOME POINT,
AND IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO DO
BECAUSE YOU REALLY HAVE TO WATCH YOUR LANGUAGE,
ESPECIALLY NOWADAYS,
THAT THE
OBVIOUS BACKGROUND OF JUST,
AND I'M SPEAKING FOR HBCUS NOW,
HOW THEY STARTED,
THEY MIGHT NOT HAVE ALL OF THIS,
ALL OF THAT TO DO WHAT THEY NEED.
DON'T PENALIZE THEM FOR IT,
GIVE THEM AN OPPORTUNITY TO,
AND I THINK ONE OF THE GOOD THINGS THAT'S GOING ON NOW,
A LOT OF TIMES, YOU KNOW,
AND I KNOW NIH DOES THIS,
THEY HAVE COLLABORATIVE AGREEMENTS.
BECAUSE I ACTUALLY HAVE A COLLABORATIVE INITIATIVE
WITH TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY,
AND IT'S BEEN AN EXCELLENT THING,
IT'S SOMETHING THAT I JUST WAS FUNDED FOR.
BUT I KNOW
THAT I PROBABLY WOULD NOT HAVE GOTTEN THAT OPPORTUNITY
HAD I NOT PARTNERED WITH THE MAIN CAMPUS
AT TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY,
BECAUSE WE ARE A PART OF THAT.
AND A LOT OF TIMES,
AND I'M SAYING THIS NOT AS A THORN,
BUT WHEN WE PARTNER,
A LOT OF TIMES THE HBCU DOES NOT SEE THE MAJORITY
OF THE FUNDS.
WITH THE GRANT THAT I WAS FUNDED WITH, PRAIRIE VIEW,
WE ARE GETTING PROBABLY 90% OF THE FUNDING,
WHICH IS VERY, VERY UNUSUAL.
SO YOU HAVE TO THINK OF THAT IN TERMS OF BALANCE.
YOU DON'T WANNA PUT THEM WITH A PWI
AND THEN THE HBCU IS JUST A NAME
FOR THEM TO GET THE FUNDING.
SO THAT'S USING,
AND IT SHOULD BE A BALANCE
WHERE IF WE'RE GOING TO COLLABORATE,
IF WE'RE GOING TO PARTNER,
IT'S GOTTA BE A BENEFIT TO THE,
AND I'M GONNA SAY,
THE ONE WHO DOESN'T HAVE AS MUCH MONEY AS THE OTHER ONE.
IT SHOULD BENEFIT THAT ONE
THAT DOESN'T HAVE ALL OF THAT MONEY
JUST AS MUCH AS IT DOES
AS THE ONE WHO'S BEEN MOVING ALONG ALL ALONG,
BECAUSE THAT MEANS YOU'RE NEVER GONNA CATCH UP.
SO I WOULD JUST HOPE
THAT AT SOME POINT WHEN THE PEER REVIEW IS TOGETHER
THAT THAT REAL CONVERSATION WILL SAY TO THOSE PEOPLE,
BEFORE YOU START LOOKING AND JUDGING
AND SAYING, OH, THEY CAN'T DO THIS,
BE CULTURALLY AWARE OF WHO YOU ARE JUDGING,
WHO YOU ARE GIVING A SCORE TO,
AND DON'T JUST THINK
JUST BECAUSE IT'S AT AN HBCU
IT CANNOT BE DONE.
WE JUST NEED AN OPPORTUNITY.
- [MONICA] THANK YOU FOR THOSE COMMENTS.
ANY REACTION? - YEAH.
- IN THE PEER REVIEW PART. - YEAH. WELL, (CHUCKLES)
YEAH, NO, THANKS.
YOU TOUCHED ON A LOT OF ISSUES.
OKAY?
SO, THERE'S A LOT THERE,
WE CAN CONTINUE TALKING THROUGHOUT THE DAY.
YOU KNOW, SO A COUPLE OF THINGS,
IN TERMS OF PEER REVIEW,
ONE OF THE PURPOSES IN REDUCING REPUTATIONAL BIAS
IS TO MAKE THE FOCUS ON JUDGING IDEAS AND NOT PEOPLE.
SO IT SHOULDN'T BE MATTERING SO MUCH
WHO'S SAYING IT OR WHERE IT'S COMING FROM.
WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO GET REVIEWERS
TO THINK ABOUT INSTEAD IS JUST,
IS THE SUFFICIENT EXPERTISE
AND THE SUFFICIENT RESOURCES THERE?
YOU KNOW, DO THEY HAVE ENOUGH
TO DO WHAT THEY PROPOSE,
AND THEN IF THEY'VE GOT ENOUGH,
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH, THAT'S IT.
SO IT'S CHANGING IT FROM A DIFFERENT,
IT'S ASKING THEM TO EVALUATE IT
FROM A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE.
AND THEN JUST QUICKLY, YOU KNOW,
THE ISSUE OF PEOPLE MAKING THE MOST OF WHAT THEY HAVE.
THIS WAS AN IMPORTANT CONCEPT TO THE WORKING GROUP
THAT PROPOSED REVISING FELLOWSHIP CRITERIA.
SO WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE WAY THINGS HAVE BEEN REVISED,
ONE OF THE IMPORTANT CONCEPTS IS THAT
WHEN SOMEBODY IS APPLYING FOR A FELLOWSHIP,
THEY ASK THE REVIEWERS TO PUT THE ACCOMPLISHMENTS
OF THAT PERSON IN CONTEXT,
IN THE CONTEXT OF THEIR OPPORTUNITIES,
THE POINT BEING,
WHAT DID YOU MAKE OF WHAT YOU HAD TO WORK WITH?
AND TO TRY TO LOOK AT IT THROUGH THAT LENS
RATHER THAN SIMPLY A SORT OF VERY TRADITIONAL
ACADEMIC SET OF ACHIEVEMENTS.
- IN TERMS OF YOUR POINT
ABOUT WHERE THE MONEY GOES IN THE PARTNERSHIP,
WHICH I THINK IS A REALLY EXCELLENT ONE,
PART OF THAT FALLS ON US
IN TERMS OF STRUCTURING THE FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES CORRECTLY.
AND SO THAT IS SOMETHING THEN FOR YOU TO LOOK AT
WHEN YOU'RE THINKING ABOUT JOINTLY APPLYING,
IS DOES THAT FUNDING OPPORTUNITY HAVE GUARDRAILS
TO MAKE SURE THAT A SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF THE MONEY GOES
TO THE LESSER-RESOURCE INSTITUTION?
SO IN OUR IDEA INBRE PROGRAM,
FOR INSTANCE, IT'S REQUIRED THAT MOST OF THE MONEY FLOWS
FROM THE CENTRAL RESEARCH-INTENSIVE INSTITUTION
TO ALL THE PARTNER,
PRIMARILY UNDERGRADUATE INSTITUTIONS.
SO THAT'S A CASE WE HAVE ENFORCED.
WE JUST REWROTE
OUR NATIVE AMERICAN RESEARCH CENTER FOR HEALTH
FUNDING OPPORTUNITY,
AND IN THAT WE NOW REQUIRE THAT 60%
OF THE FUNDS STAY WITH THE TRIBES.
SO, YOUR POINT IS AN EXCELLENT ONE,
BUT I THINK WE NEED TO DO MORE
WHEN WE'RE STRUCTURING THE FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES
TO ENFORCE, YOU KNOW, WHERE THE MONEY GOES,
'CAUSE OTHERWISE, YOU KNOW,
IT GOES TO THE CENTER OF GRAVITY.
- AND JUST TO REINFORCE WHAT JON SAID,
YOU KNOW, I THINK IN THE NOTICE OF FUNDING OPPORTUNITY,
WE HAVE TO PUT IN THESE REQUIREMENTS,
A MINIMUM OF X PERCENT
OF THE FUNDING WOULD GO TO THE PARTNER
IN THESE KINDS OF PARTNERSHIPS
THAT ARE BEING CREATED.
I'LL GIVE YOU A COUPLE EXAMPLES.
ALSO, THERE'S PARALLEL
IN COMMUNITY-BASED ORGANIZATION RESEARCH.
YOU KNOW, THE NIH COMMON FUND
NOW HAS LAUNCHED THE COMPASS INITIATIVE,
WHERE FUNDING HAS GONE DIRECTLY
TO COMMUNITY-BASED ORGANIZATIONS FOR 25 AWARDS,
SUPPORTED BY ACADEMIC HUBS AND A COORDINATING CENTER.
THAT'S A NEW EXPERIENCE FOR NIH,
WE'LL SEE HOW THAT DEVELOPS.
BUT IN OTHER CONTEXTS,
THE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT ALLIANCE,
WHICH WE STARTED WITH COVID WITH NHLBI AND NIMHD,
NOW, THERE IS A REQUIREMENT
THAT AT LEAST 25% OF THE FUNDING FOR THE AWARDS GO
TO THE COMMUNITY-BASED ORGANIZATIONS.
SO SIMILARLY, WHERE PARTNERSHIPS ARE PART OF IT,
AS IN THE FIRST PROGRAM
THAT'S A COMMON FUND PROGRAM.
YOU SEE PARTNERSHIP AT UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA, TUSKEGEE,
THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE WILL LOOK AT VERY MUCH.
AND IN FACT, THERE'S A LOCAL ONE,
THAT'S UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND, BALTIMORE COUNTY
AS THE LEAD INSTITUTION
IN PARTNERSHIP WITH UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND.
SO I DO THINK THAT THESE PARTNERSHIPS CAN WORK
AS LONG AS WE SET RULES
AND AVOID THE IDEA,
OH, WE'LL PUT THIS INSTITUTION ON
BECAUSE IT LOOKS GOOD THAT WE'RE DOING GOOD THINGS
FOR THE POPULATION,
BUT IN REALITY EVERYTHING STAYS
WITH THE, YOU KNOW, THE LARGE INSTITUTIONS.
SO, I THINK THOSE ARE REALLY EXCELLENT POINTS.
- I'VE BEEN PRETTY QUIET THROUGHOUT ALL OF THIS,
BUT THERE ARE A COUPLE OF INITIATIVES
THAT I HAVE NOT HEARD MENTIONED
THAT I THINK IS REALLY IMPORTANT
TO BRING TO YOUR ATTENTION.
HOPEFULLY, YOU ARE AWARE OF THE REWARD INITIATIVE.
IT'S AN R01 OPPORTUNITY
FOR RESEARCHERS WHO'VE NOT HAD SIGNIFICANT NIH FUNDING
TO GET FUNDED
IN RECOGNITION OF THE EXCELLENCE
OF THE WORK THAT THEY'VE BEEN DOING
TO FOSTER DIVERSITY, EQUITY, AND INCLUSION.
I THINK A LOT OF YOUR FACULTY WOULD PROBABLY FALL
INTO THAT CRITERION.
AND IT'S A MEANS OF BRINGING MORE RESOURCES
INTO YOUR INSTITUTION.
THERE'S ALSO AN INSTRUMENTATION GRANT PROGRAM
THAT HAS BEEN REVISED AGAIN UNDER DR. LORSCH'S LEADERSHIP
THAT ALLOWS FUNDING FOR INSTRUMENTATION,
FOR RESEARCH,
AND FOR UPPER-LEVEL EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS.
SO A COUPLE OF REALLY NEW THINGS
THAT CAN HELP TO PROMOTE THE WORK
THAT'S BEING DONE AT YOUR INSTITUTIONS
AND CONTRIBUTE TO THAT INFRASTRUCTURE THAT IS NEEDED.
- THOSE OF YOU WHO KNOW ME WILL NOT BE SURPRISED
TO HEAR THAT I'M THE TIMEKEEPER FOR THIS MEETING.
(CHUCKLES) AND SO,
THIS DISCUSSION HAS BEEN ABSOLUTELY FASCINATING,
AND I WISH WE COULD CONTINUE,
BUT WE HAVE NEXT SPEAKERS IN THE ROOM.
SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MONICA,
THANK YOU VERY MUCH TO OUR ESTEEMED DIRECTORS,
I'M SURE THERE WILL BE MORE TO COME.
BEFORE I INTRODUCE THE NEXT SPEAKER, THOUGH,
I'M NOT QUITE SURE HOW TO DO THIS.
OH, THERE WE GO.
I JUST WANTED TO TELL YOU ABOUT A WEBSITE
THAT WE HAVE SET UP
WHICH HAS THE AGENDA,
ALL THE PRESENTATIONS
SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO TAKE PICTURES OF THE SLIDES,
AND IT ALSO HAS A DOCUMENT
THAT WE COMPILED WHICH HAS LINKS
TO ALL THE RESOURCES WE COULD THINK OF
THAT YOU WOULD FIND USEFUL,
INCLUDING A LOT OF THE PROGRAMS WE MENTIONED
AS WELL AS SOME PRESENTATIONS, TUTORIALS.
THE URL IS THERE,
BUT THE EASIEST WAY TO FIND IT,
IF YOU GO TO THE NIGMS WEBSITE,
NIGMS.NIH.GOV,
AND YOU CLICK ON MEETINGS,
IT'LL BE THE TOP ONE.
AND FOR BOTH THE PEOPLE IN THE ROOM
AND THE PEOPLE WATCHING ON ZOOM,
I ENCOURAGE YOU TO GO TAKE A LOOK,
AND ALL THESE PRESENTATIONS ARE AVAILABLE.
YOU CAN DOWNLOAD THEM, YOU CAN USE THEM,
IT'S ALL PUBLIC INFORMATION.
AND WITH THAT,
I WILL INTRODUCE THE NEXT SPEAKER,
DR. MIKE LAUER,
THE ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR FOR EXTRAMURAL RESEARCH AT NIH,
MIKE.
NOW, I'M ASSUMING SOMEBODY WILL PUT UP YOUR SLIDES.
- [MONICA] I KNOW THERE WERE A COUPLE PEOPLE
WHO WERE RAISING THEIR HANDS FOR QUESTIONS,
SO HOLD ON TO THOSE,
AND THEN WE'LL MAKE SURE.
- THANKS, DORIT.
OKAY, GOOD MORNING.
SO I'M GONNA GIVE YOU A WHIRLWIND TOUR
OF SOME RESOURCES THAT ARE AVAILABLE
THAT YOUR FACULTY AND STAFF MAY FIND USEFUL.
AND JUST TO POINT OUT,
YOU PROBABLY ALREADY KNOW THIS,
THE NIH GRANTS OPERATION IS VERY HIGH VOLUME.
WE PROCESS IT,
OR ISSUE ABOUT 59,000 AWARDS A YEAR
TO 2,700 DIFFERENT INSTITUTIONS,
AND THAT'S FOR ABOUT $35 BILLION.
OKAY, SO, WHERE DO WE START?
WHERE'S THE FUNDING?
WHERE DO I TURN FOR ADVICE?
AND HOW DO I FIGURE OUT ALL THE FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES?
SO, WHERE DO I START?
THIS REALLY IS YOUR HOME BASE.
IT'S GRANTS.NIH.GOV.
THIS IS A WEBSITE WHICH IS PUT OUT BY OUR OFFICE,
THE OFFICE OF EXTRAMURAL RESEARCH.
AND YOU CAN ESSENTIALLY NAVIGATE
TO VIRTUALLY ANYWHERE FROM HERE,
INCLUDING ERA
AND ALL THE VARIOUS FUNCTIONALITIES
THAT ERA HAS TO OFFER.
NOW, ONE OF MY FAVORITE THINGS I SAY
IS THAT I WORK FOR THE NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH,
AND THE KEY WORD IS INSTITUTES.
AND THE KEY LETTER IS THE S AT THE END OF INSTITUTES.
WE'RE A FEDERATED STRUCTURE.
THERE ARE 27 INSTITUTES,
THEY ALL HAVE THEIR OWN SPECIFIC MISSIONS
AND STRATEGIC GOALS,
ALTHOUGH OF COURSE THERE'S A LOT THAT THEY HAVE SIMILAR.
AND OF THOSE 27,
24 HAVE GRANT-MAKING AUTHORITIES.
THE CLINICAL CENTER,
THE CENTER FOR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY,
AND CSR DO NOT ISSUE GRANTS.
SO, HOW DO YOU FIND OUT ABOUT OUR GRANTS?
SO THE WAY TO DO THAT IS TO LOOK AT OUR REPORTER SITE.
THE REPORTER SITE HAS BEEN RECENTLY MODERNIZED.
WE'VE ALSO ADDED AN API,
SO FOR THOSE PEOPLE WHO ARE ANALYTICALLY-MINDED,
THERE'S A MASSIVE AMOUNT OF DATA HERE
THAT CAN BE MINED.
ONE CAN DO A VERY QUICK SEARCH,
SO I JUST TYPED IN HERE THE WORDS MYOCARDIAL INFARCTION.
THIS IS, LIKE, THE SIMPLEST SEARCH THAT YOU CAN DO.
YOU CAN DO MUCH MORE ADVANCED TYPES OF SEARCHES.
AND IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE,
THIS YIELDS 30,000 PROJECTS.
AND THEN ONE CAN THEN LOOK
AT EACH OF THESE INDIVIDUAL PROJECTS,
GET DETAILS ON THEM,
YOU CAN SEE PUBLICATIONS,
YOU CAN SEE WHO'S BEEN WORKING ON THEM.
AND THIS KIND OF THING MIGHT BE POTENTIALLY USEFUL
IF YOU'RE LOOKING FOR POTENTIAL COLLABORATORS.
YOU COULD ALSO LOOK UP ON THE REPORT SITE,
WHICH IS RELATED, YOU KNOW,
WHAT'S GOING ON AT A NEIGHBORING INSTITUTION,
MIGHT THERE BE SOMETHING OF INTEREST THERE.
SO WE HAVE THIS FUNCTIONALITY,
THEY'RE CALLED AWARDS BY LOCATION.
OKAY, SO,
NOW, WHERE DO WE TURN FOR ADVICE?
SO, THERE ARE THREE MAJOR CATEGORIES
OF PEOPLE WHO WORK IN EXTRAMURAL.
PROGRAM STAFF, REVIEW STAFF,
AND GRANTS MANAGEMENT STAFF.
AND THE DISCUSSION THAT I JUST HEARD PART OF,
I KNOW A FAIR AMOUNT ABOUT PEER REVIEW,
AND I THINK LATER TODAY YOU'RE GOING TO BE HEARING
FROM MY COLLEAGUES ABOUT GRANTS MANAGEMENT
AND HOW THAT WORKS.
SO THIS YOU PROBABLY ALREADY KNOW,
THE PROGRAM STAFF,
THESE ARE TRAINED SCIENTISTS,
AND EACH OF THEM WILL MANAGE A PORTFOLIO OF GRANTS.
SOME OF THEM ALSO MANAGE CONTRACTS
AND OTHER TRANSACTION AWARDS.
SOME OF OUR PROGRAM STAFF WRITE THE INITIATIVES
OF THE FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES
THAT YOU WILL FIND IN THE GUIDE,
WHICH I WILL GET TO LATER.
SOME OF OUR PROGRAM STAFF DON'T DO THAT.
SOME OF OUR PROGRAM STAFF SPEND THEIR TIME
MANAGING TYPICALLY A VERY LARGE COHORT OF GRANTS.
THEY PROVIDE PROGRAMMATIC, TECHNICAL GUIDANCE,
SCIENTIFIC GUIDANCE.
THEY PLAY AN IMPORTANT ROLE
IN HELPING TO DETERMINE WHICH GRANTS GET FUNDED.
NOW, IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT TO MAKE A POINT HERE,
WHICH IS THAT THE FUNDING DECISIONS ARE MADE
BY THE IC DIRECTORS.
THEY'RE NOT MADE BY PEER REVIEWERS,
THEY'RE NOT MADE BY SROS.
THE IC DIRECTORS ARE ULTIMATELY RESPONSIBLE
FOR DECIDING WHICH GRANTS GET FUNDED.
AND, OF COURSE, PARTICULARLY IN THE LARGER ICS,
THEY DON'T DO THIS BY THEMSELVES,
THEY DO THIS WITH THEIR STAFF
IN HELPING TO MAKE THOSE KINDS OF DECISIONS.
AND PROGRAM STAFF WILL ALSO PLAY A ROLE
IN POST-AWARD MANAGEMENT.
THAT WILL INCLUDE READING THE PROGRESS REPORTS,
MAKING SURE THAT THINGS ARE OKAY.
AND THEN IN THOSE INSTANCES
WHERE THERE ARE PROBLEMS WITH GRANTS,
THEY OFTEN WILL PLAY A ROLE
IN FIGURING OUT WHAT'S GOING ON.
SO, THERE ARE MANY PROGRAM OFFICERS,
I THINK THERE ARE ABOUT 1,300 PROGRAM OFFICERS AT NIH,
SO HOW DO YOU FIGURE OUT
WHICH ONE THAT YOU SHOULD GET IN TOUCH WITH?
SO MY COLLEAGUES A NUMBER OF YEARS AGO CAME OUT
WITH SOMETHING CALLED MATCHMAKER.
THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE FAMILIAR WITH "FIDDLER ON THE ROOF,"
YOU KNOW, YOU CAN START SINGING THE SONG.
AND SO THIS IS HOW MATCHMAKER WORKS.
SO IT'S ON THE REPORTER SITE,
AND THERE IS A A BOX THAT YOU CAN FIND
WHICH IS CALLED MATCHMAKER.
AND WHAT YOU CAN DO IS YOU CAN TYPE
INTO THIS BOX ANYTHING,
ANYTHING YOU WANT.
NOW, IF YOU TYPE IN A FEW WORDS,
YOU KNOW, YOU'LL GET SOMETHING,
IT MAY NOT BE QUITE AS PRECISE AS YOU WANT,
BUT WHAT YOU MIGHT DO IS TYPE AN ABSTRACT
FROM A PAPER THAT YOU'VE WRITTEN
OR MAYBE YOU TYPE IN AN ABSTRACT
OF A PROPOSED GRANT THAT YOU'RE THINKING ABOUT WRITING.
BUT YOU CAN REALLY TYPE IN ANYTHING.
YOU CAN PUT IN 15,000 CHARACTERS,
SO THIS CAN BE FAIRLY LENGTHY.
AND THEN THIS USES LANGUAGE PROCESSING
TO THEN COME UP WITH A RESULT.
SO HERE WE'VE TYPED IN SOME LANGUAGE,
AND IT WILL YIELD A RESULT.
SO YOU CAN LOOK AT TWO DIFFERENT KINDS OF RESULTS.
YOU CAN LOOK AT PROJECTS,
SO PROJECTS THAT ARE KIND OF LIKE YOURS
THAT MIGHT GIVE YOU A SENSE
AS TO WHAT TYPES OF WORK THE AGENCY IS FUNDING,
WHAT TYPES OF WORK THE AGENCY IS NOT FUNDING.
IT MIGHT ALSO GIVE YOU A SENSE
AS TO WHO'S DOING WORK THAT YOU MAY NOT BE FAMILIAR WITH,
AND THAT MIGHT ALSO HELP
TO DIRECT POTENTIAL COLLABORATIONS.
SO IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE,
IT TURNS OUT THAT MOST OF THE PROJECTS ARE COMING
FROM NHLBI AND NCI.
AND THIS IS JUST PRESENTED FOR EXAMPLE ONLY.
AND THEN IF YOU WERE TO CLICK ON TOP OF THAT PARTICULAR IC,
SO, IN THIS CASE, NHLBI,
IT WILL THEN PULL OUT THE NHLBI PROJECTS,
AND THEN YOU CAN LOOK AT THOSE IF YOU WANT TO.
NOW, IF YOU WANNA FIGURE OUT
WHICH PROGRAM OFFICER YOU CONTACT,
THEN YOU CLICK THE OTHER TAB,
WHICH IS CALLED PROGRAM OFFICIALS.
AND THIS WILL SHOW YOU THEN THE PROGRAM OFFICIALS
WHO ARE LOOKING OR MANAGING THE MOST NUMBER OF GRANTS
IN THIS PARTICULAR
THAT LINK, THAT MATCH
TO THE TEXT THAT YOU PUT IN.
AND IF YOU WERE TO CLICK ON THOSE PARTICULAR INDIVIDUALS,
YOU WOULD SEE WHICH PROJECTS THEY'RE ACTUALLY OVERSEEING.
AND THEN YOU COULD SEE, OH YEAH,
THOSE PROJECTS ARE VERY SIMILAR TO MINE,
SO I GUESS THIS IS THE PERSON
THAT I WOULD LIKE TO TALK TO.
OR, NOT REALLY,
THIS PERSON IS MANAGING SOMETHING DIFFERENT,
SO I'M GONNA GO LOOK SOMEWHERE ELSE.
BUT WHAT THIS DOES IS THAT IT HELPS YOU GO
FROM 1,300 PROGRAM OFFICERS
TO MAYBE 5 TO 10,
AND THAT WOULD THEN MAKE IT A LOT EASIER
TO FIGURE OUT WHOM YOU MIGHT WANT TO REACH OUT TO.
OKAY.
NOW, THE SCIENTIFIC REVIEW OFFICER,
OF COURSE, THESE ARE ALSO TRAINED SCIENTISTS,
BUT THEY'RE RESPONSIBLE
FOR OVERSEEING THE PEER REVIEW PROCESS.
AND THEY'RE RESPONSIBLE FOR MAKING SURE
THAT THINGS ARE BEING DONE IN A FAIR AND OBJECTIVE WAY.
THEY'RE RESPONSIBLE FOR PRODUCING THE SUMMARY
AND THE SUMMARY STATEMENT.
THEY ALSO REVIEW THE APPLICATIONS
TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYTHING IS COMPLETE.
SO DURING THE REVIEW PROCESS,
THE SRO IS THE MAIN PERSON TO TALK WITH,
PARTICULARLY IF YOU'RE DEALING WITH REVIEW-RELATED ISSUES.
THE PROGRAM OFFICER WOULD BE THE PERSON TO DEAL WITH
ON PROGRAMMATIC OR SCIENTIFIC ISSUES.
AND, YOU KNOW,
SOMETIMES IT'S NOT ENTIRELY CLEAR WHO TO GET A HOLD OF,
BUT THEY CAN HELP FIGURE IT OUT.
ALL RIGHT, NOW, LET'S SAY THAT WE GET TO A POINT
WHERE A GRANT IS BEING RECOMMENDED FOR FUNDING.
THEN AT THAT POINT,
THE GRANTS MANAGEMENT PEOPLE GET INVOLVED.
SO WE HAVE A PROCESS HERE AT NIH
WHERE ANY GRANT THAT GETS WORKED UP FOR FUNDING
HAS TO BE HANDLED BY TWO PEOPLE INDEPENDENTLY
WHO HAVE SEPARATE ROLES.
AND THE IDEA HERE IS WE'RE NOW ISSUING MONEY.
AND SO BECAUSE WE'RE ISSUING MONEY,
WE HAVE TO MAKE ABSOLUTELY SURE
THAT, AS BEST AS WE CAN,
EVERYTHING IS BEING DONE RIGHT.
SO THERE WILL BE SOMEBODY,
THERE WILL BE A GRANTS MANAGEMENT SPECIALIST TYPICALLY
WHO WILL WORK UP THE GRANT,
CHECK TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYTHING IS OKAY.
SO THEY'LL DO A PRE-AWARD RISK ASSESSMENT,
THEY'LL CHECK TO MAKE SURE
THAT NOBODY IS ON THE EXCLUSION LIST,
THEY'LL MAKE SURE THAT THINGS ARE FINANCIALLY IN ORDER,
THEY GO THROUGH A WHOLE SERIES OF STEPS.
AND THEN THERE'S A DIFFERENT PERSON
IN THE GRANTS MANAGEMENT OFFICE
WHO'S ULTIMATELY RESPONSIBLE FOR SAYING YUP
AND CLICKING THE BUTTON
THAT SAYS NOW THE CHECK CAN BE ISSUED.
AND NOT INFREQUENTLY,
AS I'M SURE A NUMBER OF YOU KNOW,
THERE'S NEGOTIATION AT THIS POINT BETWEEN THE APPLICANT,
THAT'S THE INSTITUTION,
BY THE WAY, WE DON'T ISSUE GRANTS TO SCIENTISTS,
WE ISSUE GRANTS TO INSTITUTIONS,
AND THE GRANTS MANAGEMENT SPECIALISTS
AND SOMETIMES THE PROGRAM STAFF WILL GET INVOLVED AS WELL.
AND THEN THE GRANTS MANAGEMENT STAFF WILL ALSO GET INVOLVED
IN POST-AWARD MANAGEMENT,
THAT INCLUDES MAKING SURE THAT THE FINANCES ARE IN ORDER,
AND THEN A PART OF THE GRANT-MAKING PROCESS,
WHICH HAS BECOME QUITE INTERESTING FOR US,
AND THAT'S CLOSEOUT,
THAT'S WHEN THE GRANT ENDS.
MAKING SURE THAT THE FINAL PROGRESS REPORT IS IN,
THE INVENTION REPORT IS IN,
ALL THE FINANCES ARE IN ORDER.
OKAY, NOW,
WHAT ABOUT FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES?
AND, YOU KNOW, WHERE DO WE FIND THEM?
SO, WE USED TO CALL THESE FOAS,
FUNDING OPPORTUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS.
WE ALL GOT VERY USED TO THAT,
AND THEN WE WERE TOLD,
NO, YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO USE IT,
YOU HAVE TO USE A DIFFERENT TERM.
SO THE TERM IS NOTICE OF FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES,
OR NOFOS.
AND THIS CAME FROM THE DEPARTMENT,
AND IT TURNED OUT EVERY OTHER PART
OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HHS HAS BEEN USING THIS
FOR THE LAST 5,000 YEARS.
AND WE WERE TOLD, OKAY, NIH,
IT'S TIME FOR YOU TO GET ON BOARD AS WELL.
BUT IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE,
AND I THINK WE ACTUALLY PUT OUT A GUIDE NOTICE THAT SAID,
SOME OF YOU MAY BE NOTICING
THAT WE'RE USING THE WORD NOFO INSTEAD OF FOA,
AND NO, THERE'S NOTHING EVIL BEHIND THIS,
THERE'S NO GRAND CONSPIRACY.
IT'S JUST THAT IN THIS REGARD,
THIS AGENCY HAS BEEN A BIT BEHIND THE EIGHT BALL.
ALL RIGHT, SO,
THE PURPOSE OF NOFOS IS TO ADVERTISE OPPORTUNITIES.
AND I'M SURE YOU ALL KNOW THIS,
BUT SOME OF YOUR FACULTY MAY NOT,
YOU CAN SUBSCRIBE AND FIND OUT,
YOU KNOW, ABOUT NOFOS.
AND I REMEMBER IN MY DAY
I USED TO GET THEM EVERY FRIDAY AFTERNOON,
YOU KNOW, WHAT WAS COMING IN,
ALTHOUGH I DIDN'T USUALLY HAVE TO WAIT
TO LOOK IT UP ON MY EMAIL
BECAUSE MY DEPARTMENT CHAIR WAS SO EAGER
ABOUT THIS KIND OF THING
THAT USUALLY WITHIN A MATTER OF MILLISECONDS
HE WOULD SHOW UP IN MY OFFICE AND HE WOULD SAY,
"YOU ARE APPLYING FOR THIS ONE."
OKAY, SO WHAT DO NOFOS INCLUDE?
THEY INCLUDE A DESCRIPTION OF THE PROGRAM,
WHICH ICS ARE PARTICIPATING,
DATES, YOU KNOW, WHEN ARE THE RECEIPT DATES?
WHEN DOES THIS OPEN?
WHEN DOES THIS EXPIRE?
INFORMATION ABOUT THE AWARD,
WHO'S ELIGIBLE,
WHAT THE APPLICATION NEEDS TO LOOK LIKE,
WHAT CRITERIA WILL BE USED FOR REVIEW,
HOW THE AWARD WILL BE ADMINISTERED.
AND THEN A REALLY CRITICALLY IMPORTANT ONE
IS AT THE VERY END,
WHO ARE THE POINTS OF CONTACT?
SO, ONE REALLY CRITICALLY IMPORTANT PART
IS THAT IF A PARTICULAR NOFO IS LOOKING
FOR SOMETHING SPECIFIC,
BEFORE YOU SPEND TOO MUCH TIME WRITING IT,
YOU MIGHT WANNA CONTACT THE PROGRAM STAFF AND SAY,
THIS IS MY IDEA, IS THIS RESPONSIVE?
AND I WILL TELL YOU,
I SPENT A NUMBER OF YEARS
AS A PROGRAM DIVISION DIRECTOR AT NHLBI,
AND IT WAS HEARTBREAKING WHEN,
YOU KNOW, I WOULD GET A CALL FROM A SCIENTIST WHO WOULD SAY,
"I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY MY APPLICATION
THAT I SPENT SO MUCH TIME WORKING ON
GOT ADMINISTRATIVELY WITHDRAWN,"
AND IT WAS WITHDRAWN
BECAUSE THE APPLICATION WAS NOT RESPONSIVE
TO THE FUNDING ANNOUNCEMENT.
AND I WOULD SAY, "WELL, DID YOU TALK TO THE PROGRAM STAFF?"
AND THEY WOULD SAY NO.
OKAY, SO WHERE CAN YOU FIND THEM?
SO WE HAVE SOMETHING CALLED
THE NIH GUIDE FOR GRANTS & CONTRACTS,
IT'S REALLY THE NIH GUIDE FOR GRANTS.
AND ANOTHER PLACE YOU CAN FIND THEM IS GRANTS.GOV.
GRANTS.GOV HAS INFORMATION ABOUT FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES
ACROSS THE GOVERNMENT,
SO ALL FEDERAL GRANT-MAKING AGENCIES.
ALL RIGHT, SO THE NIH GUIDE INCLUDES NOFOS.
IT ALSO INCLUDES OTHER KINDS OF NOTICES,
LIKE NOTICES OF SPECIAL INTEREST,
I'LL TALK ABOUT EACH OF THESE.
POLICY UPDATES,
SO FOR EXAMPLE, YOU KNOW, A COUPLE YEARS AGO
WE PUT OUT OUR DATA MANAGEMENT SHARING POLICY,
SO THAT'S WHERE WE PUT IT OUT,
IS IN THE GUIDE.
CHANGES TO THE NOFOS.
SOME OF THEM MAY BE SEEMINGLY TRIVIAL, THEY'RE NOT,
BUT MAYBE A CHANGE IN THE RECEIPT DATE
OR A CHANGE IN THE TEXT OF THE NOFO.
AND THEN ALSO INFORMATION ABOUT WEBINARS
AND TRAINING EVENTS.
SOME OF THE NOFOS THAT ARE PARTICULARLY QUITE COMPLICATED,
OUR STAFF WILL PUT ON A WEBINAR
TO DESCRIBE WHAT THE NATURE OF THE OPPORTUNITY IS
AND ALSO TO TAKE QUESTIONS.
OKAY, SO NOFO TYPES.
THERE ARE WHAT WE CALL REQUESTS FOR APPLICATIONS.
SO REQUEST FOR APPLICATION MEANS THERE'S MONEY.
THE IC HAS DECIDED THIS IS SOMETHING
THAT IS IMPORTANT ENOUGH
THAT WE ARE SETTING ASIDE MONEY.
SO YOU WANNA PAY ATTENTION TO THAT.
PARENT ANNOUNCEMENTS,
THIS IS THE GENERAL, YOU KNOW,
UNSOLICITED INVESTIGATOR-INITIATED WORK.
AND THEN PROGRAM ANNOUNCEMENTS,
AND I'LL TALK ABOUT THOSE IN JUST A SECOND.
AND THE NOTICES OF SPECIAL INTEREST MEANS THAT,
AND IC IS SAYING WE ARE PARTICULARLY INTERESTED IN X.
IT COULD BE A DISEASE OR A CONDITION.
AND THERE'S NO MONEY BEING SET ASIDE,
BUT IT'S SIMPLY A STATEMENT OF INTEREST.
SO RFAS, REQUEST FOR APPLICATIONS,
AGAIN, THIS MEANS MONEY IS SET ASIDE.
OFTEN THERE'S ONLY A SINGLE RECEIPT DATE.
NOT ALWAYS, BUT OFTEN THERE IS.
AND THE SCOPE IS GENERALLY FAIRLY NARROW.
A PARENT ANNOUNCEMENT WOULD BE LIKE THE PARENT RO1.
THIS IS PROBABLY THE MOST COMMONLY USED ANNOUNCEMENT
THAT WE HAVE OUT THERE.
SO WE DON'T SPECIFY THE SCIENCE,
IT'S BASICALLY COME IN WITH YOUR GREAT IDEAS,
AND AS LONG AS THEY'RE WITHIN THE NIH MISSION,
WE WILL TAKE A LOOK AT THEM,
AND THEY USE THE STANDARD DUE DATES.
PROGRAM ANNOUNCEMENTS ARE,
IT'S KIND OF A FUNNY TERM
BECAUSE THEY ARE ANNOUNCEMENTS
BUT THEY'RE NOT EXACTLY PROGRAMS.
I ONCE HAD TO EXPLAIN THIS TO A REPORTER,
IT WAS KINDA INTERESTING.
BUT THESE TYPICALLY WILL HIGHLIGHT CERTAIN AREAS OF
FOCUS.
WE HAVE SOMETHING CALLED PARS.
SO THIS IS WHERE THERE'S SOMETHING SPECIAL,
LIKE A SPECIAL DATE OR A SPECIAL REVIEW,
MAYBE THERE'S A SPECIAL REVIEW PANEL THAT'S BEING SET UP,
SOMETHING DIFFERENT ABOUT HOW THEY'RE BEING DONE,
BUT THERE'S NO MONEY THAT'S ACTUALLY BEING SET ASIDE.
WE ALSO HAVE ANOTHER TERM CALLED PAS,
A PROGRAM ANNOUNCEMENT WITH SET ASIDE,
THESE ARE VERY, VERY UNCOMMON.
WE USUALLY USE THE OTHER ONE,
THE REQUEST FOR APPLICATIONS.
OKAY, AND THEN NOSIS,
AGAIN, INDICATE THAT WE'RE INTERESTED
IN A PARTICULAR AREA OF SCIENCE,
BUT THERE'S NO MONEY WHICH IS BEING SET ASIDE,
AND I THINK THAT'S AN IMPORTANT POINT TO MAKE.
WE ISSUE LOTS AND LOTS OF DIFFERENT KINDS OF GRANTS,
AND I THINK YOU ALL KNOW THIS.
SO THERE ARE RESEARCH GRANTS,
PROGRAM GRANTS, RESOURCE GRANTS,
TRAINING GRANTS, FELLOWSHIP GRANTS,
CAREER DEVELOPMENT GRANTS,
THERE'S EVEN MORE.
IT'S A VERY,
THE PORTFOLIO OF THIS AGENCY IS REMARKABLY DIVERSE.
AND YOU CAN GO TO THIS PARTICULAR SITE,
THIS IS, AGAIN,
PART OF OUR GRANTS.NIH.GOV SITE
WHERE YOU CAN LOOK UP MORE SPECIFIC INFORMATION
ABOUT SPECIFIC TYPES OF GRANTS
AND GET MORE INFORMATION ON THAT.
WE HAVE A LOT OF RESOURCES AVAILABLE
AS PART OF GRANTS.NIH.GOV.
WE HAVE SOMETHING ABOUT STAYING CONNECTED,
AND SO YOU CAN LOOK UP THE LATEST NEWS.
WE HAVE SOMETHING CALLED THE NIH EXTRAMURAL NEXUS.
HOW MANY OF YOU SUBSCRIBED TO THAT?
OKAY, GOOD.
AND THAT'S GOOD.
AND THOSE OF YOU WHO DON'T,
PLEASE JOIN.
AND IT ALSO INCLUDES A BLOG AND ARTICLES
AND VARIOUS RESOURCES THAT ARE AVAILABLE.
AND WE HAVE LOTS OF VARIOUS RESOURCES THAT ARE AVAILABLE.
SO THEY'RE ALL ON THE SLIDES,
AND YOU CAN LOOK THIS UP,
AND PLEASE SPREAD THE WORD
AND, YOU KNOW, LET YOUR COLLEAGUES KNOW.
THANKS, DORIT.
- [DORIT] SO TIME FOR QUESTIONS,
PLENTY OF TIME FOR QUESTIONS.
AND AGAIN, REMINDER,
ALL THESE SLIDES ARE ON THAT WEBSITE.
SO YOU CAN GO THERE AND CLICK ON ALL THE LINKS.
MIKE, YOU CAN JUST EITHER DO IT THERE OR SIT DOWN,
WHICHEVER YOU PREFER,
AND CALL ON PEOPLE AS YOU WISH.
- YEAH.
- HI, I'M ESTELA ESTAPE.
I'M A SENIOR.
I'VE BEEN IN NIH FOR A LONG TIME,
AND I'M VERY HAPPY TO BE HERE
REPRESENTING SAN JUAN BAUTISTA SCHOOL OF MEDICINE.
I'M A RESEARCH CENTER DIRECTOR,
AND FROM THE PREVIOUS PRESENTATION AND NOW YOURS,
I'M DELIGHTED THAT THE NIH IS DOING SO MUCH
FOR PREVENTING BIAS.
I REALLY THINK THAT GOING
FROM THE LARGEST UNIVERSITY IN PUERTO RICO
TO THE SMALLEST MEDICAL SCHOOL
HAS GIVEN ME A WHOLE EXPERIENCE
OF HOW THE WORD LOOKS FROM THE OTHER SIDE.
SO I WAS GONNA ASK YOU,
IF AN APPLICATION HAS AN OBVIOUS BIAS IN THE REVIEW,
AND YOU CAN SEE IT IN THE SUMMARY STATEMENT
WHEN YOU GET IT, RIGHT?
WHO SHOULD YOU CONTACT FIRST,
THE PO OR THE SRO?
AND THE OTHER QUESTION THAT FOLLOWS THAT ONE, RIGHT?
IF THE BIAS HAS AN IMPACT IN THE SCORE,
CAN THIS BE CONSIDERING THE FUNDING DETERMINATION
BY THE INSTITUTE DIRECTOR?
- THANK YOU, SO THIS IS A REALLY IMPORTANT QUESTION,
AND SO THE ISSUE IS IF THERE'S A CONCERN
THAT THERE MAY BE BIAS
IN THE WAY AN APPLICATION WAS REVIEWED,
AND I'LL ACTUALLY TAKE THIS A STEP BACK AND SAY,
ANY CONCERN ABOUT THE WAY THE APPLICATION WAS REVIEWED,
IS THERE AN APPEALS PROCESS?
SO GENERALLY THE ANSWER IS YES,
THERE IS AN APPEALS PROCESS,
AND YOU WOULD WORK WITH YOUR PROGRAM STAFF
ON HOW TO DEAL WITH THE POTENTIAL APPEAL.
THERE ARE CERTAIN APPLICATIONS
WHERE AN APPEAL IS NOT ALLOWABLE,
AND THAT TYPICALLY IS,
YOU KNOW, REQUEST FOR APPLICATIONS,
WHERE THERE'S SET-ASIDE MONEY,
AND THAT'S WRITTEN IN THE FUNDING ANNOUNCEMENT,
THAT THERE ARE NO APPEALS ALLOWED.
BUT THOSE ARE EXCEPTIONS.
GENERALLY, APPEALS ARE ALLOWED.
AND APPEALS ARE ALLOWED FOR THREE REASONS.
ONE WOULD BE BIAS,
IF THERE'S CONCERN ABOUT BIAS
IN THE WAY THAT THE APPLICATION WAS REVIEWED.
THE SECOND WOULD BE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
AND THEN A THIRD WOULD BE A FACTUAL ERROR,
AND THIS WOULD BE A FACTUAL ERROR
THAT ARGUABLY IS MATERIAL
TO HOW THE GRANT WAS REVIEWED.
SO PROGRAM STAFF WOULD WALK YOU THROUGH
HOW THAT APPEAL WOULD WORK.
IT CANNOT BE A DIFFERENCE OF SCIENTIFIC OPINION.
SO IT CANNOT BE,
I THINK THAT METHOD A IS THE GREATEST WAY
TO SOLVE A PARTICULAR PROBLEM,
THEN SOMEBODY COMES BACK AND SAYS,
"WELL, NO, METHOD A IS VERY CONTROVERSIAL,
I THINK METHOD B IS BETTER."
AND WE UNDERSTAND, OF COURSE,
THAT HAPPENS AND THAT CAN BE VERY FRUSTRATING.
BUT THAT, YOU KNOW, WE WOULD VIEW THAT
AS A DIFFERENCE OF SCIENTIFIC OPINION.
BUT ON THE OTHER HAND,
THERE ARE CASES WHERE THERE MAY BE,
YOU KNOW, CLEAR PROBLEMS.
AND SO THEN WHAT HAPPENS
IS THAT THAT APPEAL WILL GET PRESENTED TO COUNCIL.
AND DURING THE TIME WHEN I WAS A PROGRAM DIVISION DIRECTOR,
I DID PRESENT APPEALS TO COUNCIL,
AND OCCASIONALLY THE COUNCIL WOULD SAY,
YEAH, THERE ACTUALLY IS SOMETHING TO IT.
AND THEN IF THE COUNCIL DOES DECIDE
THAT THERE IS SOMETHING TO IT,
THE IC HAS A NUMBER OF CHOICES.
THEY COULD RE-REVIEW THE GRANT,
OR I PERSONALLY HAVE HAD EXPERIENCES
WHERE THE IC DIRECTOR SAID,
"I THINK I'M GONNA JUST FUND THIS.
I THINK THIS IS A REALLY GOOD POINT,
I LIKE THIS APPLICATION,
AND I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND FUND IT."
SO THAT IS AN OPTION WHICH IS AVAILABLE.
IT IS REALLY IMPORTANT
THAT THE PROGRAM STAFF BE NOTIFIED
ABOUT A POTENTIAL APPEAL EARLY
BECAUSE THERE IS, I FORGET WHAT IT IS ON THE TOP OF MY HEAD,
BUT THERE'S A CERTAIN LENGTH OF TIME,
YOU HAVE TO INDICATE THE APPEAL
WITHIN A CERTAIN PERIOD OF TIME.
YEAH.
- SO I'M MELISSA HARRINGTON,
DELAWARE STATE UNIVERSITY.
SO, I HAVE A SUGGESTION FOR REPORTER
THAT MIGHT MAKE THE SEARCHES MORE USEFUL.
THE ORGANIZATIONAL TYPE, RIGHT?
SO YOU'RE COLLECTING INFORMATION ON THE COVER SHEET
ABOUT A LOT MORE THINGS THAT ARE ACTUALLY IN THAT
THAT YOU CAN SEARCH BY AN ORGANIZATIONAL TYPE.
AND AS AN HBCU,
I SAID ONE THING THAT WOULD BE REALLY NICE TO HAVE
AS A WAY TO SEARCH WOULD BE BY HBCU.
- THAT'S A GREAT IDEA, THANK YOU.
WE'LL TAKE THAT BACK.
AND WE DO HAVE CLASSIFICATIONS,
WE GET CLASSIFICATIONS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION.
SO, I FORGET WHAT IT'S CALLED,
ICME OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
SO WE DO HAVE THAT,
WE HAVE THAT IN OUR SYSTEM.
SO THAT'S SOMETHING,
THAT'S A GREAT IDEA, THANK YOU.
OTHER?
GREAT, THANK YOU.
(ATTENDEES CLAPPING)
- SO WE'RE RUNNING EARLY,
WHICH MEANS PEOPLE GET A LONGER BREAK
AND A LONGER TIME TO CHAT AMONGST OURSELVES
WITH SOME OF THOSE QUESTIONS WE HAD IN THE FIRST SESSION.
SO IT IS NOW JUST AFTER 10:30,
LET'S COME BACK IN 20 MINUTES AT 10 TO 11.
EVERYONE'S OKAY WITH THAT?
A REMINDER, THERE'S A CAFETERIA DOWNSTAIRS
WHERE YOU CAN GET COFFEE.
THERE'S ALSO A VENDING MACHINE HERE
IF YOU WANT A SODA OR SOMETHING.
THANKS.
(NO AUDIO)
HI, EVERYONE.
IT IS 10 TO 11,
AND I'M DOING MY JOB AS TIMEKEEPER,
SO I'M GONNA GIVE EVERYBODY A MINUTE
TO FINISH YOUR CONVERSATIONS AND SIT DOWN.
FOLKS ON ZOOM,
FINISH YOUR EMAILS,
AND WE'LL BE READY.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS LIZA BUNDESEN,
WHO IS THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR
OF THE OFFICE OF EXTRAMURAL RESEARCH,
AND SHE'S GOING TO CONTINUE THE STORY
OF HOW GRANTS WORK AT NIH.
LIZA.
- THANK YOU, DORIT.
WELL, IT'S GREAT TO BE HERE IN PERSON
TO SEE ALL OF YOU TODAY.
I DO MOST OF MY TALKS ON ZOOM,
SO THIS IS REALLY A TREAT.
LET'S SEE, THERE WE GO.
YEAH, SO AS DORIT SAID, I'M LIZA BUNDESEN,
I'M MIKE LAUER'S DEPUTY, THE PREVIOUS SPEAKER.
AND SO I'M GONNA CONTINUE THIS NEXT PHASE OF GRANTS 101.
I KNOW THAT IT MAY BE A REFRESHER FOR SOME OF YOU,
NEW TO OTHERS,
AND HOPEFULLY I CAN POINT YOU TO SOME HELPFUL RESOURCES
ALONG THE WAY.
SO YOU'VE ALREADY HEARD FROM MIKE
ABOUT DIFFERENT FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES,
GRANT TYPES, DIFFERENT STAFF ROLES.
BUT WHAT I WILL DO IS DIG IN A LITTLE DEEPER
TO THE APPLICATION PROCESS
AND HOW LONG IT TAKES.
SO JUST REORIENTING YOU
BACK TO THE NIH GRANTS.NIH.GOV HOMEPAGE,
WHERE YOU CAN HAVE ACCESS TO THE APPLICATION GUIDE,
EVERYTHING THAT YOU NEED TO APPLY
AND SUBMIT AN APPLICATION.
MIKE ALSO TALKED ABOUT THE NIH GUIDE.
THAT IS OUR MAIN PUBLICATION
FOR FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES
AND GRANTS POLICY UPDATES
AND OTHER GENERAL INFO.
AND THEN, OF COURSE,
THE REPORT TOOLS THAT HE WALKED YOU THROUGH,
LIKE REPORTER AND MATCHMAKER,
THAT HAVE DECADES OF INFORMATION ABOUT GRANT AWARDS.
SO IF YOU ARE NEW TO NIH FUNDING,
ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS
THAT YOU HAVE TO DO IS ORGANIZATIONAL REGISTRATIONS.
SO THERE ARE VARIOUS ORGANIZATIONS
THAT YOU HAVE TO REGISTER WITH.
THERE'S SAM.GOV,
OR THE SYSTEM OF AWARD MANAGEMENT.
THAT IS REQUIRED FOR DOING BUSINESS WITH ANY FEDERAL
AGENCY.
YOU HAVE GRANTS.GOV,
THAT IS THE FEDERAL PORTAL
FOR ALL FEDERAL GRANT-MAKING AGENCIES,
AND APPLICATIONS WILL FLOW THROUGH GRANTS.GOV
TO NIH ERA COMMONS.
SO THAT IS THE PORTAL
THROUGH WHICH WE HAVE SECURE COMMUNICATION
WITH APPLICANTS AND RECIPIENTS.
AND THIS PROBABLY DOESN'T APPLY TO FOLKS IN THIS ROOM,
BUT IF YOU WERE A SMALL BUSINESS
AND WANTED TO SUBMIT
FOR ONE OF OUR SMALL BUSINESS INNOVATION AWARDS,
YOU WOULD HAVE TO REGISTER WITH SBA.
SO THESE REGISTRATIONS TAKE ABOUT SIX WEEKS.
SO YOU WANNA START AND DO THAT EARLY IF YOU HAVEN'T ALREADY.
SO THEN BACK TO GRANTS.NIH.GOV,
WE HAVE THE GRANTS PROCESS OVERVIEW,
AND THAT WILL STEP YOU THROUGH EVERY SINGLE PHASE
OF THE APPLICATION PROCESS.
AND SO YOU CAN CLICK THROUGH EACH OF THESE DIFFERENT STAGES,
FROM THE BASICS,
APPLYING, RECEIPT AND REFERRAL
TO AWARD AND POST-AWARD MANAGEMENT.
AND IT'LL DRILL YOU DOWN.
SO I WILL JUST GO OVER SOME HIGH-LEVEL KEY POINTS HERE.
OBVIOUSLY, THE FIRST PHASE IS TO PLAN YOUR APPLICATION.
WE RECOMMEND THAT YOU DO THIS AT LEAST SIX MONTHS
BEFORE THE APPLICATION DUE DATE.
YOU CANNOT DO THIS TWO WEEKS BEFORE THE SUBMISSION DEADLINE.
AGAIN, WORK WITH YOUR TEAM
TO REFINE YOUR RESEARCH IDEAS.
MIKE NOTED YOU CAN REACH OUT TO PROGRAM OFFICERS
TO DISCUSS IC FUNDING PRIORITIES
AND HOW YOUR IDEA WILL FIT WITHIN THAT.
AND THEN, OF COURSE,
BUILD YOUR TEAM AN INTERNAL PLAN.
SO, AGAIN, IT VARIES ABOUT HOW MUCH TIME IT TAKES
TO WRITE AN APPLICATION,
USUALLY SIX TO NINE MONTHS.
FOR FOLKS WHO ARE NEW,
WE RECOMMEND THAT YOU SHARE YOUR APPLICATION DRAFTS
WITH COLLEAGUES TO GET FEEDBACK
BECAUSE, YOU KNOW,
THEY CAN OFFER OBVIOUSLY NEW PERSPECTIVES.
BUT WHEN YOU WRITE YOUR APPLICATION,
YOU SHOULD ALSO KEEP THE REVIEWERS IN MIND
THAT FOLKS MAY BE DEEPLY INVOLVED IN YOUR FIELD,
AND OTHERS MAY BE ONCE, TWICE, THRICE REMOVED.
SO YOU WANT YOUR APPLICATION IDEA
TO HAVE STRONG EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN
AND TO BE ACCESSIBLE TO SCIENTISTS
WHO ARE IN OTHER FIELDS.
OKAY, SO THE ORGANIZATION TEAM.
SO FIRST YOU NEED TO HAVE
AN AUTHORIZED ORGANIZATION REPRESENTATIVE, OR AOR.
THIS IS ALSO,
WE REFER TO THIS PERSON AS THE SIGNING OFFICIAL,
AN ERA.
THE AOR SUBMITS APPLICATIONS ON BEHALF OF YOUR INSTITUTION.
AGAIN, AS MIKE SAID EARLIER,
WE AWARD GRANTS TO INSTITUTIONS AND NOT INDIVIDUALS,
SO THE AOR IS OUR REPRESENTATIVE TO YOUR INSTITUTION.
AND THEN, OF COURSE,
YOUR PROJECT DIRECTORS AND PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATORS,
WE REFER TO THESE FOLKS AS PIS.
THEY WILL LEAD THE RESEARCH TEAM
AND OF COURSE OTHER SENIOR KEY PERSONNEL OR COLLABORATORS.
OKAY, SO WHEN YOU'RE PREPARING TO APPLY A COURSE,
COMPLETE THOSE REGISTRATIONS.
CONFIRM THE NOTICE OF FUNDING OPPORTUNITY.
AGAIN, AS MIKE SHARED,
YOU WANT TO BE RESPONSIVE TO THE REQUIREMENTS IN THE NOFO.
AND IDENTIFY YOUR SUBMISSION METHOD.
SO THERE ARE DIFFERENT WAYS
THAT YOU CAN SUBMIT YOUR APPLICATION.
WE HAVE A SYSTEM CALLED NIH ASSIST,
IT'S KIND OF LIKE TURBOTAX FOR GRANTS.
THERE'S ALSO THE GRANTS.GOV WORKSPACE.
AND THEN SOME INSTITUTIONS HAVE
WHAT ARE CALLED SYSTEM-TO-SYSTEM.
SO MAYBE YOU HAVE DEVELOPED YOUR OWN INSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM
THAT KNOWS HOW TO TALK TO GRANTS.GOV.
BUT YOU HAVE TO USE ONE OF THESE PORTALS,
YOU CAN'T JUST DOWNLOAD FORMS AND MAIL THEM IN,
YOU HAVE TO USE ONE OF THESE.
AND THEY ALL OPERATE BY THE SAME BUSINESS VALIDATION,
SO THEY WILL ASSEMBLE YOUR DIFFERENT APPLICATION PIECES
INTO ONE FILE.
SO WE CAN'T EVEN,
WHEN IT'S ASSIGNED TO AN E-APPLICATION,
WE CAN'T TELL WHERE IT ORIGINATED.
OKAY, SO, AGAIN,
WRITING YOUR APPLICATION.
YOU WANT THE STRONG PROPOSAL
THAT ADDRESSES THE REVIEW CRITERIA
THAT WILL SPEAK TO THE REVIEWERS.
AND I CANNOT STRESS THIS ENOUGH,
READ AND FOLLOW ALL OF THE INSTRUCTIONS, (CHUCKLES)
BECAUSE UNFORTUNATELY IF YOU DO NOT FOLLOW THE INSTRUCTIONS,
THAT CAN RESULT IN AN ADMINISTRATIVE WITHDRAWAL.
AND I KNOW THESE ARE VERY TIME-CONSUMING AND VERY
DETAILED,
TO READ THE INSTRUCTIONS
AND FOLLOW THEM AS CLOSELY AS YOU CAN.
SO THEN AGAIN ON OUR WEBSITE,
WE HAVE THE APPLICATION GUIDE
THAT WILL STEP YOU THROUGH EVERYTHING
THAT YOU NEED TO APPLY.
SO WE'VE GOT VIDEOS AND PODCASTS AND FAQS.
AND THERE'LL BE GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS,
SO YOU SEE, LIKE, THE G RIGHT THERE.
AND THEN YOU'LL HAVE MORE TAILORED INSTRUCTIONS
FOR THE DIFFERENT BUCKETS OF AWARD TYPES,
SO THE RESEARCH GRANTS,
THE CAREER DEVELOPMENT GRANTS.
OKAY, AND THEN ONCE YOU'VE REVIEWED
THE GENERAL APPLICATION INSTRUCTIONS,
YOU ALSO HAVE TO ATTEND VERY CLOSELY
TO WHAT IS IN THE FUNDING OPPORTUNITY.
SO THE FUNDING OPPORTUNITY MAY HAVE ADDITIONAL INSTRUCTIONS
THAT AUGMENT THE GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS
IN THE APPLICATION GUIDE.
SO YOU SHOULD ALWAYS FOLLOW SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS
THAT ARE IN THE FUNDING OPPORTUNITY.
AND THEN WE ALSO DISCUSSED PREVIOUSLY
THE NIH GUIDE NOTICES.
SO NOFOS ARE USUALLY REISSUED ONCE EVERY THREE YEARS OR SO,
AND A LOT OF CHANGE CAN HAPPEN IN THREE YEARS TIME.
SO WE WILL ISSUE PERIODIC GUIDE NOTICES
AS A WAY TO INFORM THE COMMUNITY
OF ANY POLICY OR PROCEDURAL CHANGE.
AND SO THOSE GUIDE NOTICES MAY HAVE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
THAT YOU NEED TO ATTEND TO.
SO ESSENTIALLY, APPLICATION GUIDE FIRST,
NOFO SECOND, GUIDE LAST.
AND THE GUIDE NOTICES SHOULD BE LINKED IN THE RELATIVE NOFO
SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO,
YOU KNOW, CLICK AROUND TOO MUCH.
OKAY, SO JUST TO RECAP,
IDENTIFYING YOUR NOFO OR FUNDING OPPORTUNITY,
ACCESSING YOUR APPLICATION FORMS USING NIH ASSIST
OR GRANTS.GOV WORKSPACE,
AND FOLLOWING ALL THE INSTRUCTIONS.
TAKING ADVANTAGE OF PRE-VALIDATION SERVICES,
SO AGAIN, LIKE TURBOTAX,
THESE VARIOUS SYSTEMS WILL CHECK YOUR WORK
IF YOU TRY TO SUBMIT.
IF YOU DO NOT HAVE EVERYTHING THAT'S COMPLETE,
THEN IT WILL RESULT IN AN ERROR.
AND THEN, OF COURSE,
TO MAKE SURE YOU HAVE INTERNAL SIGN-OFFS
AND WORKING WITH YOUR AOR TO DO THE SUBMISSION.
OKAY, SO SUBMIT EARLY.
WE SAY MEASURE EARLY ON A CALENDAR, NOT A CLOCK.
ALL APPLICATIONS ARE DUE 5:00 PM LOCAL TIME
AT THE INSTITUTION
BY THE DEADLINE THAT'S SPECIFIED IN THE NOFO.
YOU WANNA SUBMIT SEVERAL DAYS BEFORE THE DUE DATE.
THAT WAY, YOU WILL CATCH LITTLE ERRORS
AND YOU CAN CORRECT THEM IN TIME FOR THE SUBMISSION,
THERE CAN BE SOME UNFORESEEN ISSUES.
AND THEN WHAT HAPPENS TO YOUR APPLICATION?
SO FIRST, YOUR APPLICATION WILL FLOW THROUGH GRANTS.GOV
THROUGH ERA COMMONS.
AND IF EVERYTHING CHECKS OUT,
IF EVERYTHING IS VALIDATED,
THEN IT'LL BE ASSEMBLED INTO AN E-SUBMISSION.
AND ONCE THAT'S SUCCESSFULLY DONE,
IT WILL GO THROUGH THIS MULTI-TIER PROCESS,
WHICH I'LL TOUCH ON EACH OF THEM.
VERY HIGH-LEVEL.
SO RECEIPT AND REFERRAL,
THE TWO LEVELS OF PEER REVIEW,
WHICH I CAN TELL BY YOUR QUESTIONS EARLIER
YOU ALREADY KNOW A LOT ABOUT,
AND THE FUNDING DECISIONS.
SO ONCE THE APPLICATION IS RECEIVED,
IT GOES TO THE CENTER FOR SCIENTIFIC REVIEW'S
DIVISION OF RECEIPT AND REFERRAL, OR DRR.
THEY WILL DO ADDITIONAL COMPLIANCE CHECKS,
VALIDATIONS EVEN BEYOND WHAT ERA WILL DO.
AND THEY WILL ASSIGN AN APPLICATION NUMBER,
ONE OR MORE INSTITUTES OR CENTERS,
AND THEN A REVIEW PANEL.
AND THIS INFORMATION,
THE REVIEW INFORMATION WILL BE IN ERA
WITHIN ABOUT TWO WEEKS.
SO YOU CAN LOG IN AND TRACK THAT.
AND THEN DR. BRUCE REED FROM CSR WILL BE HERE THIS AFTERNOON
TALKING ABOUT REVIEW IN DEPTH,
BUT JUST VERY HIGH-LEVEL.
PEER REVIEW IS A TWO-TIERED PROCESS.
WHEN YOUR APPLICATION IS SUBMITTED,
THE SRO, THE SCIENTIFIC REVIEW OFFICER,
IS YOUR PRIMARY POINT OF CONTACT.
SO THE SRO CAN ASSIST YOU IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS.
THE APPLICATION WILL GO TO STUDY SECTION
FOR SCIENTIFIC REVIEW BASED ON THE MERIT.
AND WITHIN ABOUT TWO TO THREE DAYS AFTER THE MEETING,
IT'LL BE ASSIGNED A PRIORITY SCORE.
AND THEN AFTER THAT,
THE SRO WORKS ON THE SUMMARY STATEMENT,
WHICH IS THE OFFICIAL RECORD OF THE REVIEW MEETING.
AND THAT'S USUALLY AVAILABLE ABOUT ONE MONTH LATER.
OKAY, SO POST-REVIEW,
YOUR POINTS OF CONTACT SHIFT FROM THE SRO
TO THE PROGRAM OFFICER OR GRANTS MANAGEMENT OFFICER.
SO, AGAIN, AS MIKE SAID PREVIOUSLY,
THE PROGRAM OFFICER HANDLES THE PROGRAMMATIC OBVIOUSLY
AND THE SCIENTIFIC CONTENT,
WHEREAS THE GRANTS MANAGEMENT OFFICIAL
IS YOUR KEY POINT OF CONTACT
FOR THE FINANCIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE PIECES
OF AN APPLICATION.
SO THE PO IS ABLE TO HELP CLARIFY ANY POINTS
THAT MAY BE IN THE SUMMARY STATEMENT
THAT YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND.
BUT AGAIN, THE SUMMARY STATEMENT IS THE OFFICIAL RECORD,
SO THEY CAN'T SHARE ANY OTHER INFORMATION
BEYOND WHAT'S IN THE SUMMARY STATEMENT.
AND THEN AT THIS STAGE,
IF YOUR APPLICATION IS IN A COMPETITIVE RANGE,
YOU MAY BE ASKED FOR JUST-IN-TIME INFORMATION.
SO THIS IS MORE UP-TO-DATE INFORMATION
ON ISSUES LIKE OTHER SUPPORT
OR HUMAN SUBJECTS INFORMATION,
ANIMAL WELFARE INFORMATION.
AND JUST-IN-TIME IS NOT AN INDICATOR OF AWARD,
BUT IT WILL BE NEEDED TO PROCESS
IF THE APPLICATION IS SELECTED FOR FUNDING.
OKAY, AND THEN PRE-AWARD.
SO, AGAIN, MENTIONED THAT COUNCIL
IS THE SECOND LEVEL OF PEER REVIEW.
COUNCIL IS CHAIRED BY THE IC DIRECTOR.
THEY MAKE FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS,
NOT FUNDING DECISIONS.
THE FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS.
AND THE ULTIMATE DECISION-MAKING POWER LIES
WITH THE INSTITUTE DIRECTOR.
SO AFTER APPLICATION SUBMISSION,
IT CAN TAKE UP TO NINE MONTHS
FOR AN AWARD TO BE MADE.
SO YOU DO YOUR BEST,
YOU WORK WITH YOUR STAFF CONTACTS,
AND IF YOU RECEIVE AN AWARD, OUTSTANDING,
BUT PERSISTENCE IS NECESSARY WITH NIH.
SO, NOTICE OF AWARD.
SO IF YOU ARE SELECTED,
IF YOUR APPLICATION IS SELECTED FOR FUNDING,
YOU'LL RECEIVE AN NOA, OR NOTICE OF AWARD.
THIS IS A LEGALLY BINDING DOCUMENT.
IT HAS PAYMENT INFORMATION
AND TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE AWARD.
SO ONCE YOU DRAW DOWN FUNDING,
THAT IS AN INDICATOR
THAT YOU ACCEPT THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS.
SO THE NIH GRANTS POLICY STATEMENT,
THIS IS THE PRIMARY TERM AND CONDITION OF EVERY AWARD.
IT HAS EXPLAINED ALL OF THE LAWS, RULES,
REGULATIONS BY WHICH YOU OR YOUR ORGANIZATION MUST ABIDE,
OUR EXPECTATION OF YOU
TO BE GOOD STEWARDS OF NIH FUNDING.
IT'S UPDATED ONCE A YEAR.
I MENTIONED THOSE GUIDE NOTICES
THAT WE ISSUE PERIODICALLY.
AT THE END OF THE YEAR,
ALL OF THOSE GUIDE NOTICES
THAT YOU'VE SEEN THROUGHOUT THE COURSE OF THE YEAR
ARE THEN ROLLED UP
AND USED TO UPDATE THE GRANTS POLICY STATEMENT.
SO THIS IS A 427-PAGE DOCUMENT.
(CHUCKLES) IT'S QUITE A LOT,
BUT IT'S VERY IMPORTANT.
AND THEN POST-AWARD MONITORING.
SO MICHELLE BULLS,
WHO IS OUR DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF POLICY
FOR EXTRAMURAL RESEARCH ADMINISTRATION,
WILL TALK WITH YOU LATER TODAY.
AND SHE'LL GO INTO THIS IN MORE DEPTH,
BUT THE RESEARCH ORGANIZATION MANAGES THE DAY-TO-DAY
OF THE AWARDS.
BUT NIH OVERSEES THE WORK THAT YOU'RE DOING
THROUGH ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORTS, OR RPPRS.
IF YOU WANT TO CHANGE SOMETHING WITH REGARD TO A PROJECT,
YOU HAVE TO CONTACT US FIRST.
SO THIS IS PRIOR APPROVAL.
SO A PRIOR APPROVAL REQUEST WILL BE,
SAY, IF YOU WANT TO
OR YOU NEED TO CHANGE A PI ON A GRANT
OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT,
SO YOU NEED TO SEEK OUR APPROVAL
BEFORE THAT CAN BE COMPLETED.
AND THEN WE MAY DO PERIODIC AUDITS
OF PROGRAMS OR INSTITUTIONS
AND THEN EITHER PERIODIC ROUTINE SITE VISITS
OR FOR-CAUSE SITE VISITS IF WE HAVE CONCERNS
ABOUT AN INSTITUTION'S COMPLIANCE WITH AN AWARD.
BUT OUR GOAL IS ALWAYS,
IF THERE ARE CONCERNS,
TO BRING AN INSTITUTION BACK INTO COMPLIANCE,
'CAUSE WE ARE, EXCUSE ME, ALLERGIES,
WE CONSIDER OURSELVES PARTNERS IN THIS RESEARCH.
OKAY, AND SO,
ONCE AGAIN, WE'VE GOT RESOURCES THAT MIKE SHARED.
I WANTED TO NOTE THAT,
AGAIN, BE PERSISTENT, BE PATIENT.
OUR PROCESS IS VERY DETAILED,
AND WOULD SUGGEST
THAT IF YOU DON'T HAVE PRIOR FUNDING WITH NIH,
TO REACH TO OTHER ORGANIZATIONS THAT DO
AND GET ADVICE.
WE ALSO KNOW
THAT THERE ARE SOME WONDERFUL PROFESSIONAL SOCIETIES
LIKE APLU, FASAB, AAMC
THAT WILL OFFER RESOURCES AND GUIDANCE
AND NETWORKING OPPORTUNITIES FOR INSTITUTIONS.
WE HAVE ON OUR WEBSITE A NUMBER OF GREAT RESOURCES,
SO JUST LAST WEEK WE DID A 90-MINUTE WEBINAR
ON THE GRANTS OVERVIEW PROCESS,
SO THAT WILL BE POSTED PROBABLY AT THE END OF THIS WEEK,
SO YOU CAN CHECK THAT OUT.
AND THEN USUALLY EVERY YEAR OR EVERY OTHER YEAR,
WE HOST SOMETHING CALLED THE NIH VIRTUAL GRANTS CONFERENCE.
WE USED TO DO THIS IN PERSON,
AND WE WOULD HAVE ABOUT 500 TO 700 ATTENDEES.
AND WE WOULD DO IT TWICE A YEAR, YOU KNOW,
IN BALTIMORE OR SOMEWHERE IN THE WEST COAST,
AND THEN THE PANDEMIC HITS,
AND SO IT REQUIRED US TO GO VIRTUAL.
SO WE'VE BEEN DOING THIS FOR A FEW YEARS,
AND NOW WE HAVE USUALLY ABOUT 25,000 REGISTRANTS
IN EVERY STATE AND A HUNDRED COUNTRIES.
SO OUR NEXT CONFERENCE WILL BE NEXT YEAR.
BUT WHAT WE DO IS WE POST ALL OF THE DETAILED WEBINARS,
THE POWERPOINTS, AND THE TRANSCRIPTS ONLINE
SO THAT YOU CAN VIEW THEM,
YOU KNOW, IN BITE-SIZED CHUNKS
AND DRILL DOWN INTO MORE DETAIL.
SO WITH THAT,
THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION,
AND PLEASE LET ME KNOW IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.
- QUESTIONS. (ATTENDEES CLAPPING)
AND BEFORE THE QUESTIONS,
I JUST WANNA SAY PERSONALLY
THAT I TRIED TO PERSUADE US TO GO VIRTUAL
WITH THAT CONFERENCE IN 2007,
SO I'M VERY, VERY HAPPY TO SEE THAT IT HAPPENED.
- YES, IT'S REALLY AMAZING
THAT WE HAVE SUCH HUGE ATTENDANCE
IN SO MANY DIFFERENT COUNTRIES,
AND WE'VE HEARD FROM SURVEYS
THAT PEOPLE CAN ATTEND
WHO NEVER WOULD'VE BEEN ABLE TO IN PERSON,
SO WE'RE THRILLED.
- [DORIT] SO,
YOU GUYS SHOULD ATTEND TOO. - YOU, SIR? (CHUCKLES)
- [DORIT] OKAY.
- OKAY, SO REALLY QUICKLY,
I'M GLAD DR. PEREZ IS STILL HERE,
I RAN INTO THIS ISSUE.
I AM CURIOUS ABOUT THE COMMUNICATION BETWEEN,
SAY, ASSIST, THE SROS, THE INSTITUTES.
INSTITUTIONS, YOU KNOW, THEY HAVE THEIR OWN CHALLENGES.
THE REASON I'M SAYING THIS
IS BECAUSE IT WAS A GRANT SUBMITTED TO RCMI.
AND THEY HAVE CORES,
AND SOME OF THOSE CORES ARE OPTIONAL.
BUT WHAT HAPPENED WAS YOU COULD NOT SUBMIT THE GRANT
UNLESS YOU ACTUALLY PUT SOMETHING
IN THE OPTIONAL CATEGORY.
- OKAY. - SO THEN WHAT HAPPENS
IS THAT YOU DUPLICATE ANOTHER CORE.
AND SO YOU HAVE, YOU KNOW, A DUPLICATION
AS A PART OF THE APPLICATION.
THE REVIEWERS DIDN'T GET THAT,
AND THEY WRITE THAT AS A PART OF THE SUMMARY STATEMENT.
AND IT LOOKED VERY NEGATIVE,
AS IF YOU HAVE NOT EVALUATED US,
OR THAT YOU HAD NOT PUT TOGETHER A GOOD APPLICATION
BECAUSE YOU'VE DUPLICATED CORES,
BUT THE ONLY REASON IT WAS DUPLICATED,
BECAUSE YOU COULD NOT SUBMIT THE GRANT.
AND THIS WAS AFTER HAVING CONVERSATIONS
WITH THE PROGRAM OFFICERS
ABOUT WHAT TO DO BECAUSE YOU RUN INTO AN ISSUE,
I CAN'T SUBMIT. SO YOU REACH OUT, AND THEY SAY,
"WELL, ADD A DUPLICATE."
- HMM. - TO PUT IT INTO,
YOU KNOW, SO YOU CAN SUBMIT IT. AND SO THEN YOU DO THAT,
GET A SUMMARY STATEMENT BACK FROM THE REVIEWERS,
AND THIS IS THE COMMENT.
AND I DO KNOW THAT ALL INSTITUTIONS HAVE THEIR
CHALLENGES,
BUT I'M CURIOUS ABOUT THE PROCESSES OF THE SUBMISSION,
YOU KNOW, ALL THESE DIFFERENT STAKEHOLDERS.
HOW ARE THEY COMMUNICATING BETWEEN THE SROS
AND THE REVIEWERS THAT THIS HAD TO BE DONE
FOR THIS PARTICULAR ANNOUNCEMENT FOR THIS SUBMISSION
BECAUSE YOU COULDN'T SUBMIT IT OTHERWISE
UNLESS YOU DUPLICATE IT?
- OKAY, WOW. - AND AN OPTIONAL CORE,
AND THAT WAS A CHALLENGE.
I THOUGHT THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT NEEDED TO BE WORKED OUT
ON THE SOFTWARE SIDE OF THE SUBMISSION PROCESS.
BUT FROM A REVIEWER STANDPOINT,
IT LOOKS BAD, BECAUSE IF I'M LOOKING AT IT,
I'M SAYING, WELL,
THE INVESTIGATORS DIDN'T EVEN TAKE TIME ENOUGH
TO REVIEW WHAT THEY'VE DONE
AND THEY PUT IN DUPLICATE COMPONENTS.
YOU KNOW, THEY'RE ALREADY STARTING OFF WITH A BIAS
BECAUSE THIS HAS KIND OF COME UP, YOU KNOW, EARLIER.
BUT THE BIAS WAS CREATED BY THE SYSTEM THAT WAS INEFFICIENT.
- OKAY, THANK YOU,
I'VE NOT HEARD OF THAT ISSUE BEFORE,
BUT WE'RE CONSTANTLY TRYING TO IMPROVE OUR SYSTEMS,
AND WE DO THAT BY HEARING FROM YOU,
FROM THE USERS.
SO I'LL TAKE THAT BACK TO OUR COLLEAGUES IN ERA
AND SEE IF THEY'VE HEARD OF THAT AND WHAT WE CAN DO.
SO, THANK YOU.
YES, SIR.
- [ATTENDEE] IRB.
IF YOU HAVE IRB. - YOU NEED A MICROPHONE.
- I'M SORRY.
- [ATTENDEE] YES, IRBS.
LET'S SAY YOU HAVE AN IRB IN PROGRESS
DURING THE APPLICATION.
HOW DO YOU HANDLE THAT?
- I'M SORRY, COULD YOU REPEAT? - IRB.
- ABOUT THE IRB? - IF YOU HAVE AN IRB
IN PROCESS DURING YOUR APPLICATION PERIOD, RIGHT?
HOW WOULD YOU HANDLE THAT?
- SO THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THE PROGRAM OFFICER
WOULD BE ABLE TO ASSIST YOU WITH.
I DON'T KNOW MUCH ABOUT THE DETAILS OF THE IRB FOR THAT.
DOES ANY OF MY IC COLLEAGUES WANNA GRAB THAT?
- SURE, SO FOR THE IRB PROCESS,
THIS IS A JUST-IN-TIME REQUIREMENT.
SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO HAVE THAT APPROVAL
TO SUBMIT THE APPLICATION,
BUT YOU DO NEED TO HAVE IT PRIOR TO THE AWARD,
OR ELSE THE AWARD WILL NEED TO BE RESTRICTED.
IF THEY'RE ABLE TO MAKE AN AWARD AT ALL,
IT WOULD HAVE TO BE RESTRICTED.
SO YES, THAT'S A JUST-IN-TIME REQUIREMENT.
- THANK YOU.
OKAY, ANYTHING ELSE?
- [DORIT] ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?
- WE'RE JUST FLYING
THROUGH THE GRANTS PIECE. - I KNOW.
- 'CAUSE YOU ALREADY KNOW EVERYTHING, SO.
- OKAY. - ALL RIGHT.
- [DORIT] YES, MELISSA.
- [MELISSA] SO, I REMEMBER READING A WHILE AGO,
SO WITH OUR CURRENT AND PENDING RIGHT NOW
THAT REQUIRES THE VERIFIED ELECTRONIC SIGNATURE,
AND THERE WAS TALK THAT THAT WAS GONNA HAPPEN
WITH THE BIOSKETCH TOO,
IS THAT ACTUALLY GOING TO HAPPEN?
- MM, I DON'T KNOW. (CHUCKLES)
GOOD QUESTION.
ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU.
- THANKS VERY MUCH, LIZA.
AND THAT MEANS WE'RE AT LUNCH BREAK.
AND IT'S ONLY 11:15,
SO LET'S TAKE A NICE, LONG LUNCH TILL 12:30.
I WILL SAY THAT YOU'VE HEARD FROM NIH.
AFTER LUNCH, WE'RE GOING TO BE HEARING FROM PIS
FROM A BUNCH OF INSTITUTIONS JUST LIKE YOURS
ABOUT THEIR EXPERIENCE APPLYING
AND RECEIVING FUNDING FROM NIH,
SO I THINK THAT'S GONNA BE A VERY INTERESTING SESSION,
AND I HOPE YOU'LL ASK THEM LOTS OF QUESTIONS.
SO WE'LL SEE YOU ALL BACK HERE AT 12:30.
THANK YOU.
(NO AUDIO)
- WOW, SO,
HELLO, EVERYBODY.
FIRST OF ALL, I'M MARVELING AT DORIT'S DIRECTIONS.
YOU SAID BE IN YOUR SEATS AT 12:30,
EVERYBODY WAS IN THEIR SEATS AT 12:30.
SO, (CHUCKLES) THANK YOU EVERYBODY
FOR BEING HERE TODAY,
AND HOPE EVERYBODY'S HAD A GREAT MORNING.
THE AFTERNOON SESSION POST-LUNCH,
WE'RE GONNA BE, YOU KNOW, SWITCHING GEARS A LITTLE BIT.
FIRST OF ALL, I'M JEAN SHIN,
I AM DEPUTY DIRECTOR
IN THE CHIEF OFFICER FOR SCIENTIFIC WORKFORCE DIVERSITY,
OR COSWD OFFICE,
SO BASICALLY MARIE BERNARD'S DEPUTY.
AND IT'S MY PLEASURE TO BE MODERATING THIS NEXT SESSION,
WHICH IS TITLED
OUR EXPERIENCE APPLYING FOR AND OBTAINING NIH SUPPORT -
LESSONS LEARNED FROM SUCCESSFUL GRANTEES.
AS YOU CAN TELL BY THE TITLE,
THIS IS A SESSION,
REALLY A CONVERSATION WITH YOUR PEERS.
PEERS THAT ARE FACULTY MEMBERS AND ADMINISTRATORS
AT THEIR RESPECTIVE INSTITUTIONS.
SO WE'RE GONNA DO SOMETHING NEW AND DIFFERENT TODAY.
THERE ARE NO SLIDES BEING PRESENTED.
THIS IS A PURE CONVERSATION.
YOU'RE GONNA HEAR SOME REMARKS FROM EACH OF OUR PANELISTS,
AND THEN IT'LL BE A Q&A,
REALLY HOPEFULLY FOR ALL OF YOU TO ENGAGE
WITH ONE OR ALL OF THE PANEL.
SO JUST, I'LL LET THEM INTRODUCE THEMSELVES
AS THEY START SPEAKING,
BUT WE HAVE DR. TSENG, DR. ZADEGAN,
DR. HARRINGTON, DR. ADAMS-CAMPBELL,
IN THAT ORDER.
AND YOU CAN SEE THEIR AFFILIATIONS
AS WELL AS THEIR PHOTOS ON SCREEN.
SO WITH NO FURTHER ADO,
I'LL TURN THINGS OVER TO DR. TSENG TO START.
- [KELLY] HI, GOOD AFTERNOON.
SHOULD I TURN ON MY MIC?
- YES, PLEASE.
- HI, GOOD AFTERNOON.
I'M KELLY TSENG,
I'M AN ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR
AT UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA, LAS VEGAS.
SO IT'S A PLEASURE TO BE HERE TODAY.
SO, I'M GONNA START BY SAYING
THAT WHEN I FIRST GOT THE EMAIL FROM DR. ZUK
ABOUT THIS CONFERENCE,
I HAD TWO THOUGHTS.
THE FIRST WAS, OH, NIH KNOWS WHO I AM?
THAT, YOU KNOW, (ATTENDEES LAUGHING)
DR. ZUK SENT ME AN EMAIL,
A PERSONAL EMAIL, RIGHT?
SO I WAS VERY FLATTERED,
AND OF COURSE I SAID YES.
BUT MY SECOND THOUGHT WAS, YOU KNOW,
THE PANEL IS FOR SUCCESSFUL GRANTEES,
AND, YOU KNOW, THAT ACTUALLY SURPRISED ME A LITTLE BIT.
I JUST WANNA BE HONEST,
BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, WE AS SCIENTISTS,
WE FACE A LOT OF KIND OF NOES MORE THAN YES
IN OUR JOB, RIGHT?
LOTS OF NOES.
YOU KNOW, EXPERIMENTS TEND TO FAIL, RIGHT?
GRANT PROPOSALS DON'T GET FUNDED.
SO, YOU KNOW,
EVEN THOUGH I HAVE A GRANT FROM NIH,
I DIDN'T THINK OF MYSELF AS A SUCCESSFUL GRANTEE.
SO, YOU KNOW, THIS CONFERENCE ACTUALLY GOT ME
TO THINKING ABOUT THAT.
BUT, YOU KNOW, IN A SENSE,
I FOLLOW BASEBALL,
AND, YOU KNOW, IN BASEBALL,
IF A HITTER GETS A HIT 30% OF THE TIME,
THAT'S CONSIDERED A SUCCESS.
AND I THINK PROBABLY, YOU KNOW,
IF I GOT A GRANT 30% OF THE TIME,
I WOULD THINK THAT'S GREAT TOO.
SO, YOU KNOW, I'M VERY HAPPY TO BE HERE,
BUT I WANTED TO SHARE SOME OF MY THOUGHTS ABOUT THAT.
AND, YOU KNOW, AS SOMEONE WHO HAS A GRANT,
YOU KNOW, THAT'S A SUCCESSFUL GRANTEE, RIGHT?
SO, YOU KNOW, I KINDA WANNA TALK A LITTLE BIT
ABOUT MY EXPERIENCE APPLYING FOR GRANTS.
SO I TRAINED AT, YOU KNOW,
VERY RESEARCH-INTENSIVE PLACES,
SO I WAS VERY AWARE OF, AT THOSE PLACES,
THE EXPECTATION AND THE REQUIREMENT FOR NIH FUNDING.
SO CERTAINLY, WHEN I STARTED MY POSITION AT UNLV,
I ALSO WANTED TO APPLY FOR GRANTS ACTIVELY.
BUT IT IS A BIT INTIMIDATING,
EVEN THOUGH I WAS AWARE OF SOME
OF THE KIND OF THE CHALLENGES
HEARING MY ADVISORS TALK ABOUT IT.
I ONLY APPLIED FOR FELLOWSHIP,
SO I WASN'T AWARE OF KIND OF ALL THE DIFFERENT THINGS
THAT GOES INTO, YOU KNOW, APPLYING FOR GRANTS
BESIDES SAYING, I WANT TO APPLY FOR GRANTS.
AND AT UNLV,
WE ACTUALLY HAD A COUPLE OF THINGS
THAT I WANTED TO MENTION THAT KIND OF HELPED ME PROGRESS
TOWARDS THE ROAD FOR GETTING A GRANT.
SO WHEN I FIRST GOT THERE,
'CAUSE IT WAS VERY DIFFERENT ENVIRONMENT
THAN MY TRAINING ENVIRONMENT,
A LOT OF SENIOR FACULTY TALKED TO ME
ABOUT THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF GRANTS
THAT WERE AVAILABLE AT UNLV
THAT WE COULD APPLY FOR THROUGH NIH,
FOR EXAMPLE, THE R15, THE AREA GRANTS,
AND ALSO, YOU KNOW, BEING AN INBRE STATE
THAT I DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT COMING FROM BOSTON.
SO, YOU KNOW, I BECAME MORE AWARE OF THESE THINGS.
THE OTHER THING THAT WE HAD
THAT WAS VERY USEFUL WAS A FACULTY GRANT CLUB.
SO THIS WAS STARTED BY A COUPLE OF SENIOR FACULTY,
WHERE THEY VOLUNTARILY, YOU KNOW,
WOULD REVIEW GRANTS,
AND WE WOULD GO IN A MEETING,
ANYONE CAN COME, EVEN GRADUATE STUDENTS,
TO SIT THERE AND ACTUALLY, YOU KNOW,
JUST KIND OF MAKE CONSTRUCTIVE FEEDBACK
FOR, YOU KNOW, OTHER FACULTY
WHO WERE INTERESTED IN, YOU KNOW,
WRITING PROPOSALS AND GRANTS.
AND I HAD, YOU KNOW,
ONE OF MY SPECIFIC AIMS PAGE THAT WAS REVIEWED,
AND I GOT SOME REALLY HELPFUL COMMENTS.
AND THEN THE OTHER THING
THAT WAS HELPFUL WAS THAT AT UNLV
WE HAD SMALL GRANTS THAT WE'RE GIVING OUT
THROUGH INTERNAL COMPETITIONS
KINDA TO HELP FACULTY GET ON THEIR WAY, SO TO SPEAK.
AND I FOUND THAT, YOU KNOW, IT WAS A GOOD WAY FOR ME
TO START WRITING MY GRANTS IN A SMALLER WAY
AND NOT FEEL AS INTIMIDATED.
OKAY.
AND SO WHEN I, YOU KNOW,
KIND OF FIGURED OUT I WAS GOING TO APPLY FOR,
YOU KNOW, MY FIRST GRANT WAS GONNA BE A R15 GRANT,
I, YOU KNOW, EMAILED THE PROGRAM OFFICER
AND I TALKED TO ONE,
AND I WANT TO SAY THAT THEY'RE AS HELPFUL AS,
YOU KNOW, THEY'VE BEEN MADE OUT TO BE,
AND I GOT A LOT OF HELPFUL INFORMATION TO DO THAT.
AND I STARTED PUTTING TOGETHER MY GRANT
AND, YOU KNOW, I TALKED TO MY SPONSOR OFFICE
TO FIGURE OUT WHAT I NEEDED TO DO AND ALL OF THAT.
AND THE ONE THING THAT REALLY SURPRISED ME
WAS THAT IN ADDITION TO THE RESEARCH PROPOSAL PART,
WHICH, YOU KNOW, I HAD EXPERIENCE WITH
AND I TRAINED IN,
YOU KNOW, THAT WAS FAIRLY STRAIGHTFORWARD
WAS ALL THESE EXTRA ADMINISTRATIVE PART
WHICH I WAS NEVER EXPOSED TO AS A POSTDOC.
THE BIOSKETCH, THE BUDGETS,
THE BUDGET JUSTIFICATION,
ALL THOSE OTHER MANAGEMENT FACILITIES,
ALL OF THOSE THINGS,
WHICH AS A NEW FACULTY IS A LITTLE DIFFICULT
BECAUSE YOU DON'T KNOW
WHAT THE RESOURCES ARE AVAILABLE ON CAMPUS
AND YOU DON'T KNOW, YOU KNOW,
HOW DO YOU MAKE A BUDGET FOR YOUR PERSONNEL?
AND FORTUNATELY FOR ME,
I HAD SENIOR FACULTY
WHO WERE WILLING TO SHARE THEIR SUCCESSFUL GRANTS,
ESPECIALLY THOSE PART OF THE DOCUMENTS THAT WAS NECESSARY.
SO I WAS ABLE TO HAVE A TEMPLATE
WHERE I COULD JUST LOOK AT IT
AND THEN, YOU KNOW,
KIND OF WRITE IT IN MY OWN WAY TO SUBMIT.
SO THAT WAS VERY HELPFUL.
AND, YOU KNOW, I MANAGED TO MAKE THE DEADLINE
THAT I WANTED TO,
BUT UNFORTUNATELY I DIDN'T GET FUNDED IN THAT FIRST GRANT.
AND THEN THE NEXT PART OBVIOUSLY WAS TO FIGURE OUT
HOW DO YOU RESPOND TO THE REVIEWER COMMENTS.
SO, YOU KNOW, ONCE AGAIN,
I REACHED OUT TO MY PO,
AND THEY ALSO ONCE AGAIN HAD HELPFUL COMMENTS FOR ME,
AND IT JUST KIND OF WAS REALLY DIFFERENT PROCESS
FROM THEREON.
AND, YOU KNOW,
MY ROAD WAS A BIT LONG, I WOULD SAY,
IT TOOK ME A BIT OF TIME TO GET FUNDING.
BUT I THINK THE KEY PROBABLY,
AS ALL OF YOU KNOW,
IS RESILIENCE AND PERSISTENCE BASICALLY.
AND WHAT I FOUND WAS THAT, YOU KNOW,
WHEN ONE SEES OTHER FACULTY BECOMING,
YOU KNOW, SUCCESSFUL,
THEN SOMETIMES YOU CAN ACTUALLY SPUR OTHER FACULTY
TO APPLY FOR GRANTS.
I'VE HAD, YOU KNOW,
I WAS THE FIRST FACULTY IN MY INSTITUTION
TO APPLY FOR THE R16,
AND I HAD A COUPLE FACULTY COME UP TO ME,
YOU KNOW, AFTER I HAD GOTTEN THE GRANT
TO SAY THAT THEY WERE INTERESTED NOW
IN APPLYING FOR IT TOO, RIGHT?
SO A LITTLE BIT OF PEER PRESSURE
AND KIND OF, YOU KNOW,
HAVING POSITIVE NEWS IS ALWAYS HELPFUL.
AND THEN THE OTHER THING I ALSO WANTED TO SAY
IS THAT I THINK IT'S REALLY NICE,
YOU KNOW, WHEN THERE ARE GRANTING EFFORTS
TO HAVE KIND OF THE INSTITUTION,
WHERE THE ADMINISTRATION ACKNOWLEDGE THAT,
YOU KNOW, FOR FACULTY,
ESPECIALLY AT, YOU KNOW, RESOURCE-LIMITED INSTITUTIONS,
TO APPLY FOR GRANTS IS EXTRA EFFORT
AND THAT, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE PUTTING IN,
THAT WOULD BE APPRECIATED, RIGHT?
YOU KNOW, ASIDE FROM KIND OF THE PERSONAL MOTIVATION
OF GETTING A GRANT FOR YOUR OWN RESEARCH,
BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, AS FACULTY,
WE DO HAVE A LOT OF OTHER COMMITMENTS THAT ARE REQUIRED,
AND, YOU KNOW, WRITING A GOOD GRANT TAKES A LOT OF TIME TOO.
AND I THINK SOMETIMES, YOU KNOW,
FACULTY JUST APPRECIATES A NICE WORD OF ENCOURAGEMENT
FROM THE ADMINISTRATION TOO.
YEAH.
- HI, EVERYONE.
I'M REZA ZADEGAN,
I'M AN ASSISTANT PROFESSOR
AT THE NORTH CAROLINA A&T STATE UNIVERSITY.
WE'RE THE LARGEST HBCU IN THE NATION
BY THE NUMBER OF THE STUDENTS.
WE'RE TRYING TO BE AN R1,
WE'RE DOING EVERYTHING
TO MAKE SURE THAT WE CAN MOVE
TOWARDS A BIT MORE RESEARCH-ORIENTED ACTIVITY
IN THE UNIVERSITY.
MOSTLY,
SO OUR SCHOOL IS MOSTLY GRADUATE SCHOOL.
IT'S THE DEPARTMENT OF NANOSCIENCE AND NANOENGINEERING
GETTING TOGETHER FROM UNCG AND A&T.
AND WE DON'T HAVE ALL THE CHALLENGES
THAT THE PEOPLE ON OUR MAIN CAMPUS HAVE,
OR AT LEAST I DON'T HAVE SOME OF THOSE CHALLENGES,
BUT CERTAINLY WE HAVE BEEN EXPOSED
TO SOME CHALLENGES AS WELL.
I DON'T KNOW, ARE WE GONNA MOVE THROUGH,
OR SHOULD I PROVIDE SOME FEEDBACK
OR SOME SUGGESTIONS RIGHT NOW?
OKAY, SO I SHARE A LOT OF
WHAT WAS SHARED BEFORE BY KELLY.
SO I DO HAVE A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT I WANNA SHARE.
I THINK ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT THINGS
THAT HELPED ME A LOT,
I WAS MORE SUCCESSFUL.
I'D SAY I ONLY APPLIED TWO TIMES,
AND I GOT BOTH OF THEM,
BUT ONE WAS ADMINISTRATIVELY WITHDRAWN,
SO ONE OF THE LESSONS THAT I LEARNED
WAS TO READ VERY CAREFULLY.
THERE WAS A TWO AND THREE NUMBER
BETWEEN THE TWO PROGRAMS THAT WE SUBMITTED,
UNFORTUNATELY WE DIDN'T HAVE THE EXPERIENCE
IN THE INSTITUTION EITHER, SO.
THE FIRST ONE WAS AFTER RECEIVING THE NOTIFICATION,
THEN IT WAS WITHDRAWN.
BUT, SO READ THROUGH THE DOCUMENTS
THAT ARE SHARED BY NIH VERY CAREFULLY.
MAKE SURE THAT YOU'RE CONTACTING THE PO,
AND MAKE SURE THAT THEY KNOW YOU
AND YOU KNOW THEM
AND YOU ARE APPLYING TO THE RIGHT PLACE.
AND SO THAT'S ONE THING,
AND THAT REQUIRES TIMING TO BE VERY WELL-MANAGED.
YOU GOTTA DO IT PROBABLY WAY IN ADVANCE
JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU CAN COVER ANY MISTAKE
THAT MIGHT BE HAPPENING THROUGH THE PROCESS.
SO THESE ARE VERY HAND-IN-HAND THINGS,
I WOULD SAY READ CAREFULLY
AND ALSO MAKE SURE THAT YOUR TIMING IS GOOD.
SAY TIMING, IT'S PROBABLY A YEAR AHEAD,
NOT A COUPLE OF MONTHS.
JUST MAKE SURE THAT YOU ARE COVERING ALL THE GRANTS,
ESPECIALLY AT INSTITUTIONS THAT HAVE SOME CHALLENGES.
SOMETIMES HR IS ROADBLOCKS,
SOMETIMES PERSONNEL IS SOMETHING
THAT YOU HAVE TO HANDLE.
AND ASK QUESTIONS,
SO I THINK THAT'S THE NEXT THING.
I HAVE HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH THE PO
AND WITH DIFFERENT PEOPLE,
AND I FOUND THAT I'M APPLYING TO THE RIGHT PLACE,
AND THAT WAS THE SUCCESSFUL GRANT
THAT I HAD.
SO IF I'M TALKING TO THE PEOPLE THAT WANNA WRITE,
THAT WOULD BE MOSTLY PIS,
I WOULD SAY REVIEW, REVIEW, REVIEW,
MAKE SURE THAT YOU READ YOUR DOCUMENT VERY CAREFULLY
AND YOU HAVE COVERED EVERY ASPECT OF THE RESEARCH
THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO PURSUE.
SO QUALITY FOR ME MATTERS THE MOST,
SO THAT'S WHY I REVIEW VERY, VERY INTENSIVELY.
I WAS MY OWN ENEMY WHEN I WAS READING THE DOCUMENT MOSTLY.
AND TRY TO MAKE SURE THAT I COVER ALL THE ASPECTS.
AND IN THIS ASPECT,
WHAT YOU MENTIONED ACTUALLY STOOD OUT FOR ME,
THAT YOU CONNECT WITH SOME OF YOUR PEERS
AND GIVE THEM THE DOCUMENT,
MAKE SURE THAT THEY READ.
IF YOU HAVE ACCESS TO PEOPLE OUTSIDE OF YOUR INSTITUTION,
THAT WOULD BE ALSO VERY USEFUL.
MAYBE YOU CAN GIVE THE DOCUMENT TO A GRANDMA
AND SEE WHAT THEY THINK ABOUT IT,
BECAUSE YOU WANNA MAKE SURE
THAT YOU'RE COMMUNICATING SCIENTIFICALLY
WITH YOUR TARGET AUDIENCE,
WHICH MIGHT AND MIGHT NOT BE VERY FAMILIAR
WITH THE TOPIC THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO COVER.
SO IT SHOULD BE,
SO WHEN YOU'RE WRITING,
IT SHOULD BE INFORMATIVE ENOUGH
THAT A PERSON THAT DOESN'T KNOW MUCH CAN READ IT
AND CAN UNDERSTAND IT AND CAN COMPREHEND IT.
AND AT THE SAME TIME,
IT COVERS ALL THE VERY, YOU KNOW, SCIENTIFIC ASPECTS.
AND MAKE SURE THAT THERE IS NO WEAKNESS
IN SCIENTIFIC APPROACH.
YEAH, I THINK I'M GONNA STOP RIGHT NOW,
BUT I WOULD SAY FOR THE INSTITUTIONS,
SO ONE THING THAT REALLY HELPED ME
WAS THE OFFICE OF THE SPONSORED RESEARCH
IN OUR UNIVERSITY'S CALLED DORED,
ONE THING THAT REALLY HELPED ME,
BOTH FOR NIH AND NSF,
WAS A WORKSHOP THAT WHEN I JOINED,
IT WAS LIKE ONE MONTH AFTER I JOINED,
THERE WAS A WORKSHOP,
IT WAS BEFORE THE COVID.
SO I WAS LUCKY THAT I COULD ATTEND THAT WORKSHOP.
THERE WAS A WORKSHOP,
AND A GENTLEMAN CAME AND GAVE A TALK
AND WAS TALKING ABOUT HOW TO WRITE A SUCCESSFUL PROPOSAL.
THAT REALLY HELPED,
I WOULD SAY PROBABLY 70% HELPED ME
IN THAT REGARD.
SO INSTITUTIONS, IF YOU CAN PROVIDE THAT,
THAT WOULD BE REALLY HELPFUL FOR THE PIS,
FOR THOSE THAT WANNA MOVE FORWARD AND DO THE RESEARCH.
I'M GONNA STOP AT THAT.
- THANK YOU, SO I'M MELISSA HARRINGTON
AT DELAWARE STATE UNIVERSITY.
AND I HAVE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE.
SO MY FIRST ADMINISTRATIVE TITLE,
WHICH WAS GIVEN TO ME BACK IN 2005,
WAS DIRECTOR OF BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH,
AND I WAS JUST THEN BARELY,
I HAD JUST BECOME AN ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR
AND HAD BEEN SUCCESSFUL WITH SOME NIH FUNDING.
AND THE DEAN AT THE TIME FROM MY COLLEGE SAID,
"OH, GREAT, NOW YOU'RE GONNA HELP ALL YOUR COLLEAGUES,
YOU NEED TO GET THEM SUCCESSFUL WITH NIH TOO,"
AND SO THAT'S BEEN ACTUALLY A MAJOR PART
OF MY PROFESSIONAL PORTFOLIO EVER SINCE THEN.
RIGHT NOW I'M THE ASSOCIATE VICE PRESIDENT FOR RESEARCH,
WHICH AT DEL STATE IS THE SENIOR RESEARCH OFFICER,
AND I'M TRYING TO BROADEN THAT ACROSS ALL OUR DEPARTMENTS
AND FOR AGENCIES BESIDES NIH.
BUT NIH IS STILL THE ONE
THAT WE'VE BEEN THE MOST SUCCESSFUL AT
IN CHANGING OUR RELATIVE LEVEL OF FUNDING.
AND THERE'S SOME KEYS TO THAT.
SO I CAN SPEAK NOT JUST SO MUCH ABOUT MY SUCCESS
BUT HOW I HELPED MY COLLEAGUES BE SUCCESSFUL.
ONE OF THE BIG THINGS
THAT WAS TRANSFORMATIVE FOR US WAS THE IDEA PROGRAM,
OR THE MECHANISMS THROUGH THE IDEA PROGRAM,
SO I GOTTA GIVE A SHOUTOUT TO NIGMS.
SO DELAWARE, WE'RE AN IDEA STATE.
AND STARTED WITH THE BRIN GRANT,
WHICH WAS AN ACRONYM, OF COURSE,
AND THEN THERE WAS,
SUCCESSIVELY THE ACRONYM IS NOW INBRE,
AND WE'RE ON, STATEWIDE, VERSION FIVE.
UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE IS THE LEAD INSTITUTION,
AND THEN A BIG PART OF THE FUNDS GO TO SUPPORT PILOTS,
PROJECTS, AND CORE FACILITIES THROUGHOUT THE STATE,
INCLUDING AT DELAWARE STATE UNIVERSITY.
AND WHEN I CAME TO DEL STATE IN 2001,
I WAS TOLD,
"STAY AWAY FROM UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE." (CHUCKLES)
"THEY JUST WANT OUR STUDENTS,
THEY'LL USE YOU TO GET A GRANT,
AND YOU WON'T GET ANYTHING."
AND THERE WAS A LOT OF INSTITUTIONAL DISTRUST.
I THINK THE IDEA PROGRAMS, THE INBRE GRANT,
AND THEN LATER THE CLINICAL/TRANSLATIONAL RESEARCH,
THE CTR CENTERS,
REALLY TRANSFORMED THAT RELATIONSHIP
BECAUSE UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE CAME TO US AND SAID,
"OH, WE WANNA PARTNER ON A GRANT,"
AND THEY HAD TO GIVE US MONEY TOO.
THEY HAD TO GIVE US A BIG CHUNK OF THE MONEY,
AND SO FOR ME,
MY FIRST NIH GRANT,
NIH GRANT, WAS A PILOT GRANT THROUGH THE BRIN.
AND THEN THAT,
I WAS ABLE TO BUILD ON THAT
TO THEN HAVE INDEPENDENCE NIH FUNDING.
AND THEN LEADING TO KIND OF INSTITUTIONALLY
WHAT WAS TRANSFORMATIVE,
THAT EVENTUALLY LED TO ME BEING A DIRECTOR
FOR AN NIGMS IDEA-FUNDED CENTER,
IT'S CALLED COBRE, THAT'S THE ACRONYM.
FOR THOSE OF US WHO ARE IN IDEA STATES,
YOU KNOW, THE CENTERS OF BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH EXCELLENCE.
THIS IS INCLUDING INDIRECT COSTS,
THESE WERE OVER $10 MILLION FOR FIVE YEARS OF FUNDING
TO BUILD RESEARCH INFRASTRUCTURE
AND SUPPORT INVESTIGATORS.
WE PARTNERED WITH UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE,
BUT DEL STATE WAS THE LEAD INSTITUTION.
AND WE WERE THE ONLY HBCU TO HAVE ONE OF THESE COBRE GRANTS,
AND THIS WAS IN 2012 WHEN WE WERE FIRST AWARDED.
WE'RE NOW, YOU KNOW, GOING INTO YEAR 13,
WE'RE FINISHING UP YEAR 12,
AND WE'RE STILL THE ONLY HBCU WITH A COBRE GRANT.
I REALLY WISH THAT WERE NOT THE CASE.
WHAT ALLOWED US TO BE COMPETITIVE WAS THAT INTERACTION
WITH UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE,
WHERE THEY CONTRIBUTED, YOU KNOW,
A COUPLE OF OUR INVESTIGATORS,
SOME OF THE PILOTS WERE FUNDED,
THEY WERE ABLE TO GET THE R01 GRANTS,
AND THAT GAVE US THE SCIENTIFIC CREDIBILITY
THAT THEN ALLOWED US TO BE,
AS A PARTNERSHIP, TO BE COMPETITIVE
EVEN WITH DELAWARE STATE UNIVERSITY AS THE LEAD
INSTITUTION.
AND I HAVE TO SAY, WHEN WE FIRST GOT FUNDED,
REVIEWERS DIDN'T LIKE IT, RIGHT?
THE REVIEWERS DIDN'T BELIEVE IT.
IN FACT, ONE REVIEWER,
TALKING ABOUT INSTITUTIONAL BIAS,
ONE OF OUR FIRST REVIEWS SAID THEY CAN'T AWARD THIS,
THIS INSTITUTION'S NOT A MEDICAL SCHOOL.
BUT IT WAS SIDNEY MCNARY,
SIDNEY MCNARY TOOK A CHANCE ON US,
AND WE'RE NOW IN YEAR 12,
AND IT'S BEEN REALLY SUCCESSFUL.
WE WERE ABLE TO FOLLOW UP THAT SUCCESS.
TWO YEARS AGO, IN 2022,
WE WERE FUNDED WITH AN RCMI GRANT,
SO ANOTHER BIG CENTER
THAT NOW IS JUST FOR DELAWARE STATE UNIVERSITY
THAT'S ALLOWING US TO FUND INVESTIGATORS
KIND OF AT THE PROJECT-LEAD LEVEL
AND AS WELL AS PILOTS
AND SUPPORT DEVELOPMENT OF CORE FACILITIES.
SOME THINGS THAT WERE REALLY,
I THINK ELEMENTS THAT WERE MOST HELPFUL
FOR THESE CENTER GRANTS,
PARTICULARLY FOR COBRE NOW THAT WE'RE 12 YEARS IN
AND WE KNOW WHAT WORKED,
THE REQUIREMENT FOR MENTORS,
AND NOT JUST, OH, THE PI,
YOU KNOW, THE PROJECT LEADS
AND THE PILOT PIS HAVE TO HAVE MENTORS,
BUT A STRUCTURED MENTORING PROGRAM.
SO I HELPED,
AND MY COLLEAGUES THAT WERE WORKING ON THE GRANT,
WE HELPED THE PILOT INVESTIGATORS
AND THE RESEARCH PROJECT LEADS IDENTIFY MENTORS.
ESPECIALLY COMING TO DEL STATE.
THESE ARE RESEARCHERS THAT AREN'T TERRIBLY CONNECTED,
RIGHT?
DON'T HAVE A BIG PROFESSIONAL NETWORK OF OTHER SCIENTISTS,
AND IT CAN BE VERY INTIMIDATING
TO HAVE TO REACH OUT TO SOMEBODY
AND HAVE THEM, YOU KNOW,
ASK THEM TO BE A MENTOR.
SO AS THE COBRE DIRECTOR,
I TOOK THAT OFF OF THEM.
I SAID, "OKAY, IF YOU IDENTIFY WHO YOU THINK WOULD HELP,
I WILL REACH OUT."
AND WE HAD MONEY TO PAY THEM,
AND IT WAS,
YOU KNOW, PART OF AN HONORARY THING.
IT WAS NOT PUTTING IT ON THE INVESTIGATOR, YOU KNOW,
GO BEG SOMEONE FOR HELP,
IT'S REACHING OUT AND SAYING,
"YOU HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE PART OF THIS CENTER
THAT'S GONNA TRANSFORM OUR INSTITUTION
AND HELP DEVELOP THIS CADRE
OF DIVERSE NIH COMPETITIVE INVESTIGATORS."
SO I THINK THAT KIND OF STRUCTURED MENTORSHIP PROGRAM
WAS REALLY KEY,
AND THEN WHAT THE MENTORS PROVIDED FOR OUR INVESTIGATORS,
I THINK THE KEY THING,
AND THEY SAY TOO WHAT HELPED THEM,
WAS THE MENTORS WOULD GO
THROUGH THEIR PROPOSALS LINE BY LINE.
THAT'S WHAT WE'RE PAYING 'EM FOR, RIGHT?
IS FOR THEM TO GO THROUGH THEIR PROPOSALS LINE BY LINE
AND TURN IT INTO A FORM THAT CAN BE COMPETITIVE.
AND THAT REALLY HELPED THEM GET OVER THAT HUMP.
THE OTHER THINGS THAT FUNDING WAS REALLY KEY FOR,
AGAIN, HAS BEEN TO SUPPORT CORE FACILITIES.
WE HAVE A MICROSCOPY CORE,
WE HAVE A CELL ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY CORE
THAT'S UNIQUE IN THE STATE OF DELAWARE.
PATCH CLAMP, RIGHT?
YOU KNOW, NOT CARDIAC ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY BUT PATCH
CLAMP.
AND THEN OUR ANIMAL FACILITY.
THAT'S BEEN REALLY KEY.
AS WELL AS,
YEAH, I GUESS, SO.
NOW I LOST MY TRAIN OF THOUGHT,
BUT HAVING THESE CENTERS THAT CAN SUPPORT THE INVESTIGATORS,
OH, AND THE BIOINFORMATICS/BIOSTATS CORE
THAT'S PART OF THE CTR GRANT.
THE THING WE STRUGGLE WITH, RIGHT, IS PUBLICATION.
SO PILOT GRANTS ARE REALLY KEY,
THESE KIND OF TRAINING WHEELS ARE REALLY KEY
FOR ALLOWING INVESTIGATORS TO COLLECT SOME PRELIMINARY DATA.
BUT THEN THE NEXT MOST IMPORTANT THING, RIGHT,
YOU CAN'T GET FUNDED IF YOU DON'T HAVE PUBLICATIONS, RIGHT,
IS GETTING THEM TO THE POINT
WHERE THEY CAN GET THEIR PUBLICATIONS,
OR GET THEIR RESEARCH IN PUBLICATIONS.
AND THAT'S WHERE THE MENTORS HELPED A LOT TOO.
IN SOME CASES, MENTORS WOUND UP COLLABORATING
ON PUBLICATIONS,
ON THOSE FIRST PUBLICATIONS WITH THE INVESTIGATORS.
WE HAD A LITTLE BIT OF, EH, IS THIS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST
AND WRESTLING RIGHT AT THE BEGINNING,
BUT THEN WE THOUGHT, NO,
THIS IS HELPING OUR INVESTIGATORS BE SUCCESSFUL
SO THAT THEY CAN GET THEM OUT THERE.
AND TRAINING THE INVESTIGATORS,
OUR INVESTIGATORS, TO SAY,
ASK TO BE THE SENIOR AUTHOR.
YOU KNOW, DON'T JUST,
IF SOMEBODY'S GONNA WRITE A PAPER FOR YOU,
IT DOESN'T DO ANY GOOD.
WHEN YOU'RE A FACULTY MEMBER,
IT DOES YOU NO GOOD TO BE THE SECOND AUTHOR.
DOES YOU ONLY A LITTLE BIT MORE GOOD TO BE THE FIRST AUTHOR.
YOU NEED TO BE THE SENIOR AUTHOR, RIGHT?
AND SO GIVING THEM THE BACKING TO ASK FOR THAT
AND EXPECT THAT FROM THE PEOPLE THEY'RE WORKING WITH
AS A WAY TO HELP THEM BECOME MORE COMPETITIVE.
SO.
OH, AND THEN THE LAST THING IS PERSISTENCE, RIGHT?
THAT, I JUST CAN'T EMPHASIZE THAT ENOUGH.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THE COBRE GRANT HELPED WITH
AND OUR RCMI GRANT HELPED WITH
IS WHEN THEY SUBMIT THEIR FIRST PROPOSAL,
AND THESE DAYS NOBODY,
ALMOST NOBODY GETS, YOU KNOW,
LUCKY ON THE FIRST TIME, RIGHT?
BUT IT'S GIVING THEM THE UNDERSTANDING
THAT THIS IS PART OF THE PROCESS.
THIS IS YOUR OPPORTUNITY.
THEY'VE GIVEN YOU FEEDBACK, RIGHT?
THIS IS YOUR OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE YOUR PROPOSAL SUCCESSFUL.
AND HAVING THAT STRUCTURE TO HELP SUPPORT THEM
TO KEEP TRYING,
TO TRY AGAIN, TO TRY AGAIN,
AND HOW TO MAKE THEIR PROPOSAL BETTER
HAS ALSO BEEN REALLY IMPORTANT FOR GETTING THEM FUNDED.
AND I'LL STOP THERE.
- GOOD AFTERNOON.
I'M LUCILE ADAMS-CAMPBELL,
AND I'M A PROFESSOR OF ONCOLOGY.
I'M AT GEORGETOWN LOMBARDI COMPREHENSIVE CANCER CENTER.
AND I AM NOT AT A HBCU.
HOWEVER, MY PATH TO HOWARD UNIVERSITY
WAS VIA MY TRAINING AT UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH.
GOING FROM THERE TO NEW ENGLAND RESEARCH INSTITUTE,
THEN COMING BACK TO DC, WHICH IS MY HOME.
BUT I CALLED NIH TO ASK,
SHOULD I COME TO HOWARD UNIVERSITY?
THEY'RE TRYING TO RECRUIT ME,
SO WAS JOHNS HOPKINS.
AND THEY REALLY CONVINCED ME
THAT GOING TO HOWARD UNIVERSITY WOULD BE A GREAT IDEA
BECAUSE I WAS SO TRAINED IN DOING RESEARCH.
SO THEY SAID, "WELL, AT LEAST WE KNOW YOU
AND WE KNOW YOU'LL BE AT HOWARD,
AND THIS SHOULD WORK OUT QUITE WELL."
AND IT DID.
SO I SPENT 18 YEARS AT HOWARD,
ALTHOUGH I'VE BEEN AT GEORGETOWN,
WE'RE GOING INTO MY 17TH YEAR,
BUT I WAS DIRECTOR OF HOWARD UNIVERSITY CANCER CENTER
FOR 13 YEARS.
AND I SAY THAT BECAUSE WHEN I STARTED,
I, AS A DIRECTOR,
I MADE EVERYBODY SIGN A DOCUMENT,
WHICH IS PROBABLY ILLEGAL,
(ATTENDEES LAUGHING)
THAT SAID THAT YOU HAD TO WRITE A GRANT EVERY CYCLE.
SO WE'VE HEARD FROM EVERYBODY THAT TALK ABOUT PERSISTENCE.
EVERY CYCLE, YOU HAVE TO WRITE A GRANT.
SO YOU SHOULD AT LEAST HAVE TWO GRANTS
OPERATING THE SAME TIME.
WE'RE WAITING FOR REVIEWS TO COME BACK,
THE SUMMARY STATEMENTS,
AND GO ON.
AND PEOPLE HAVE SAID TODAY,
THE FACULTY HAVE SAID TODAY,
TALKED ABOUT PERSEVERANCE.
I KNOW TOO MANY PEOPLE
WHEN THEY READ THE SUMMARY STATEMENT,
THEY GIVE UP ON THAT PROJECT AND GO DO SOMETHING ELSE.
AND THAT'S THE WORST THING YOU CAN DO.
YOU REALLY HAVE TO FOLLOW YOUR IDEAS
AND FIGURE OUT HOW TO MAKE THAT GRANT A BETTER GRANT.
BECAUSE IF YOU KEEP CHANGING GRANTS
EVERY TIME YOU GET A SUMMARY STATEMENT,
YOU'LL END UP NOWHERE.
AND THAT'S A BIG FALLACY I SEE IN MANY OF THE INSTITUTIONS.
WELL, I WROTE ON THIS TOPIC TODAY,
BUT THEY BASHED ME.
ACTUALLY READ THE SUMMARY STATEMENT,
PUT IT AWAY,
AND THEN COME BACK TO IT
AND READ IT FROM A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE.
WHEN YOU FIRST READ IT, YOUR FEELINGS ARE HURT,
YOU'RE CRUSHED,
THEY DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT YOU.
BUT THEN YOU HAVE TO KEEP PRESSING FORWARD.
BEING AT HOWARD UNIVERSITY,
THE MOST IMPORTANT THING TO ME INITIALLY
WAS THE COLLABORATIONS.
AND I ALWAYS HEARD FROM BASIC SCIENCE
JUST THAT THEY WILL STEAL MY SCIENCE.
MY RESPONSE WAS,
YOU'RE NOT PUBLISHING,
SO THEY'RE NOT GONNA STEAL ANYTHING.
IT'S NOT GONNA BE YOURS UNTIL YOU PUBLISH WHAT YOU'VE DONE.
SO WE STARTED ESTABLISHING COLLABORATORS
AND PARTNERS AND CONSULTANTS.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE A COLLABORATOR,
A FORMAL COLLABORATOR ALL THE TIME,
BUT YOU NEED TO HAVE CONSULTANTS.
I WAS TALKING TO SOMEBODY AND SAYING,
YOU CAN HAVE COLLABORATIVE, PARTNERS ON YOUR GRANT,
BUT YOU MIGHT NOT WANNA GIVE ANYBODY ANY MONEY
OR MAYBE A LITTLE BIT OF MONEY.
MAKE 'EM A CONSULTANT.
WHY DO YOU MAKE THEM A CONSULTANT?
BECAUSE THEIR BIOSKETCH MIGHT BE MUCH STRONGER
THAN YOUR BIOSKETCH.
AND IT BRINGS THAT NAME TO THE FRONT TO THE REVIEWERS.
IT'S A SHAME OF HOW THINGS WORK,
BUT IT'S REALITY.
YOU KNOW, NAME RECOGNITION SOMETIMES GOES A LONG WAY.
SOMETIMES IT GETS YOU KILLED,
BUT AT THE SAME TIME,
YOU HAVE TO HAVE PEOPLE THAT CAN HELP MOUND YOU OUT,
SO TO SPEAK.
THE IDEA OF PRELIMINARY DATA.
PEOPLE WANNA WRITE A GRANT WITH NO PRELIMINARY DATA.
IT DOESN'T WORK.
AND HOW DO YOU GET PRELIMINARY DATA?
THAT'S WHEN YOU NEED THE INSTITUTION TO HELP SOMETIMES,
TO GIVE SOME PILOT FUNDS OUT.
OR WORK WITH SOMEBODY
THAT YOU CAN COME UP WITH SOME PRELIMINARY DATA
SO THAT YOU CAN WRITE A PUBLICATION.
OR THE FIRST THING I HAVE ANYBODY DO
WHEN THEY'RE WORKING WITH ME IS TO PICK A TOPIC
YOU WANNA WRITE A GRANT ON.
BUT THEN LET'S SIT DOWN
AND ACTUALLY SEE YOU WRITE OUT
AND HAND ME YOUR ONE-, TWO-,
OR THREE-PAGE PRELIMINARY DATA SECTION.
THAT'S WHAT GUIDES WHICH WAY YOU'LL GO
AND HOW STRONG YOUR PROJECT WILL BE
SO THAT YOU CAN IDENTIFY PEOPLE THAT CAN WORK WITH YOU.
WE ALWAYS HEAR ABOUT THE R01S.
GOTTA GET AN R01, WE GOTTA GET AN R01,
BUT THERE ARE A WHOLE LOT OF MECHANISMS OUT THERE.
AND YOU DON'T HAVE TO START WITH AN R01.
MAYBE IF YOU'RE JUST STARTING AT R03 OR R21
OR SOME OTHER LEVEL,
AND BUILD UP.
BUT THE PRESSURE'S ALWAYS ON YOU TO GET AN R01.
AND THAT'S GREAT,
BUT SOMETIMES YOU'RE JUST NOT READY.
IF YOU DON'T HAVE THE PRELIMINARY DATA,
YOU MIGHT NEED TO GO TO A SMALLER MECHANISM.
AND FROM THAT, YOU CAN BUILD FROM THERE.
I JUST WANNA TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE PEER REVIEW PROCESS
THAT WAS ALREADY ALLUDED TO.
WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE SUMMARY STATEMENT,
AT THE BACK, IT LISTS EVERYBODY WHO REVIEWED YOUR GRANT.
AND YOU'LL SAY, THAT PERSON KNOWS NOTHING ABOUT WHAT I DO,
THAT PERSON KNOWS NOTHING ABOUT WHAT I DO.
SO YOU HAVE TO BE SO CLEAR ON WHAT YOU DO
SUCH THAT ANYBODY CAN READ IT.
BUT STILL WE ARGUE,
IT'S NOT FAIR,
THEY'RE NOT IN THIS FIELD,
THEY'RE NOT IN THAT FIELD,
THEY'RE NOT IN THE RIGHT FIELD TO STUDY IT.
BUT MAYBE THE LUCK OF THE STRAW
OR THE WORST PART ABOUT THIS RANDOMNESS,
IT HAPPENS TO EVERYBODY AT ALL LEVELS,
THAT YOU WANNA GET A GREAT REVIEW,
BUT YOU HAVE TO MAKE YOUR GRANT SO CLEAR AND CRISP
THAT YOU CAN DO THAT.
I WANNA GO BACK TO DON'T GIVE UP.
I THINK PEOPLE QUIT SO SOON.
I HAVE PEOPLE THAT WANNA GO
INTO ADMINISTRATION REALLY QUICKLY
SO THAT THEY DO NOT HAVE TO WRITE ANY MORE GRANTS.
THERE'S A BRANCH CHIEF OUT HERE,
I WON'T CALL HER NAME,
SHE WAS AN OUTSTANDING POSTDOC OF MINE.
SHE'S A BRANCH CHIEF NOW.
SOMEBODY ELSE WAS OUTSTANDING,
AND THE PERSON WOULD SAY AT NIH,
"WELL, WE FIGURED IF YOU DIDN'T FIRE THEM,
THEY WERE GREAT TO HIRE."
SO THEY PLUCKED OFF A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT ARE REALLY GOOD,
BUT EVERYBODY DOESN'T WANNA WRITE GRANTS.
WE WANT YOU TO WANT TO WRITE GRANTS
IN THIS MEETING.
WE HOPE YOU REALLY WANNA BE SUCCESSFUL IN WRITING GRANTS.
WE ALSO ESTABLISHED SOMETHING CALLED MOCK REVIEWS.
WHEN YOU HAVE A SPECIFIC AIMS PAGE,
WE CALL IT IDEA WHERE WE HAVE THE SPECIFIC AIMS PART.
HERE, IDEA.
SO YOU HAVE AN IDEA/CONCEPT,
BRING IT FORWARD, LET PEOPLE DISCUSS IT.
I DON'T THINK THE FEAR OF SOMEBODY STEALING YOUR IDEA
SHOULD BE SO PERVASIVE
OR MAKE CERTAIN YOUR CIRCLE IS CLOSED.
BUT IF YOU PUBLISH,
YOU GET MORE OWNERSHIP TO IT.
AND THEN HAVING A MOCK STUDY SECTION.
LET PEOPLE SIT AND REVIEW YOUR GRANTS IN FRONT OF YOU.
THAT'S A EYE-OPENER.
WE HAVE OUR COLLEAGUES SIT THERE,
WE SUBMIT THE GRANTS TO THEM MAYBE,
AND WE MAKE ALL OF OUR JUNIOR FACULTY DO THIS.
WE SUBMIT THE GRANTS TO THEM FOR LIKE SIX WEEKS,
NOT SIX WEEKS, THREE WEEKS IN ADVANCE.
AND THEN WE COME
AND WE'LL LINE UP LIKE THIS AND DO THE REVIEW.
AND WE ALSO WILL GIVE A WRITTEN REVIEW.
AND OUR CANCER PREVENTION AND CONTROL PROGRAM
HAS THE HISTORY OF DOING THIS
AND HAS DONE IT THE LONGEST.
AND WE HAVE A VERY GOOD TRACK RECORD OF GETTING FUNDED.
SO OUR MECHANISM REALLY, REALLY WORKS.
AND I THINK IF YOU GET OTHER PEOPLE TO BUY IN,
IF YOU DON'T HAVE THE PEOPLE THAT YOU NEED THERE,
PICK UP THE PHONE AND CALL
AND GET SOME PEOPLE FROM OTHER INSTITUTIONS
AND PEOPLE THAT YOU'VE KNOWN AND THAT YOU CAN TRUST.
BUT EVERYBODY DOESN'T WANNA STEAL YOUR IDEA,
'CAUSE THEY HAVE THEIR IDEAS AS WELL.
AND I THINK PEOPLE GET LOST IN THAT IDEA
ABOUT WE NEED TO TAKE FROM PEOPLE.
WHAT ELSE?
THE DIFFERENT GRANTS AND MENTORING,
AS YOU TALKED ABOUT.
MENTORING IS SO IMPORTANT,
AND I STILL HAVE A MENTOR,
AND I'M AT THE END END TOWARDS MY CAREER.
AND I THINK THAT YOU DON'T NEED ONE MENTOR,
YOU NEED A LITTLE COHORT OF MENTORS.
IT MIGHT BE TWO OR THREE PEOPLE,
BUT THEY MENTOR YOU IN DIFFERENT FACETS OF LIFE,
DIFFERENT THINGS.
ONE PERSON MIGHT WORK DIRECTLY ON WHAT YOU'RE DOING,
BUT SOMEBODY ELSE CAN COMPLIMENT YOU
IN TERMS OF HOW YOU KEEP YOUR CAREER GOING FORWARD.
AND I THINK YOU NEED TO HAVE MENTORING TEAMS.
I DON'T THINK PEOPLE GET ALONG WELL WITHOUT MENTORING TEAMS.
AND MY MENTOR HAS BEEN,
FOR DECADES AND DECADES AND DECADES,
THE CHAIR OF THE EPIDEMIOLOGY DEPARTMENT
AND THE BIOSTATISTICS DEPARTMENT
AT UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH.
I'VE KEPT IN TOUCH.
UNFORTUNATELY, MY CHAIR OF EPIDEM DIED RECENTLY,
BUT I'VE ALWAYS BEEN IN TOUCH WITH PEOPLE
THAT COULD ALWAYS ADVISE ME.
AND I THINK THAT IF I CAN SAY THAT I STILL HAVE MENTORS,
I THINK THAT MANY OF YOU CAN REACH OUT TO HAVE MENTORS
THAT YOU REALLY, REALLY NEED THAT COULD REALLY BENEFIT YOU.
AND EVERYBODY SHOULD HAVE,
IF YOU DON'T DO IT,
YOUR INDEPENDENT, THE IDP, PERSONAL STATEMENT.
YOU NEED TO FIGURE OUT AND SET GOALS FOR YOURSELF.
EVEN AS WE SIT HERE TODAY,
YOU MIGHT BE ASSISTANT, ASSOCIATE, FULL PROFESSORS.
WHAT ARE YOUR GOALS?
LIKE, DO YOU HAVE A GOAL
OF GETTING SO MANY PAPERS OUT IN A YEAR?
DO YOU HAVE A GOAL OF SUBMITTING A GRANT EVERY CYCLE?
DO YOU HAVE A GOAL OF LOOKING AT DIFFERENT MECHANISMS?
AND ONE THING THAT I NOTE THAT NIH DOES QUITE WELL,
THEY HAVE WEBINARS
ON THE MECHANISMS THAT THEY'RE PUTTING OUT.
AND PARTICIPATE IN THOSE MECHANISMS
AND ALSO MEET WITH YOUR PROGRAM OFFICER
THAT'S IN CHARGE OF THAT MECHANISM.
FOR EXAMPLE, I'M READING AN RFA
THAT SAYS COMMUNITY OUTREACH,
BUT I HAVE A MEETING WITH THE OFFICER AT NIH,
AND I GO AND MEET WITH THEM.
AND I SAID, "WE HAVE THIS."
THEY SAID, "BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT IT MEANS."
I SAID, "BUT IT SAYS THAT."
"THAT'S WHY WE WANT YOU TO COME MEET WITH US."
AND THAT ONE THING ABOUT MEETING
WHERE THEY CLARIFY WHAT EVERYTHING MEANT
MEANT THE WORLD TO US.
AND DURING THAT CYCLE,
WE WERE THE ONLY PARTNERSHIP THAT WAS FUNDED.
AND I WORK CONTINUOUSLY WITH HOWARD UNIVERSITY,
HAVE PROGRAMS THAT HAVE HAPPENED WITH UDC,
UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,
THE INTERFACE WITH NCCU.
SO I'M JUST SAYING I BELIEVE IN PARTNERING,
BUT WHEN YOU PARTNER,
ALSO YOU SHOULD BE PAID AND COMPENSATED
FOR WHAT YOU DO.
IT CANNOT BE ONE WAY.
IT WON'T BE 50/50,
I'LL TELL YOU STRAIGHT OUT, IT WON'T BE.
BUT FOR WHAT YOU ARE COMMISSIONED TO DO
OR WHAT YOU AGREE TO DO AND HOW YOU COLLABORATE,
YOU SHOULD BE PAID ACCORDINGLY.
AND THAT BRINGS ME TO THE LAST TOPIC WE WANNA TALK ABOUT,
AND THAT'S SUBCONTRACTS.
UGH, SUBCONTRACTS OFTEN ARE VERY DIFFICULT,
AND MAYBE YOUR HBCU IS VERY GOOD AT IT.
I'VE SEEN AND WITNESSED HOW AT THE END OF THE GRANT,
MONEY HAS NOT BEEN SPENT.
THE POST-AWARD SIDE HASN'T BEEN SPENT DOWN
BECAUSE PEOPLE CAN'T HIRE THE PEOPLE THEY NEED.
AND EVEN WHEN YOU SUBMIT A GRANT AND YOU SAY,
"I NEED A HALF FTE,"
OR SOMEBODY ON THE REVIEW TEAM SAID,
"WELL, THAT PERSON ONLY NEEDS A HALF FTE."
AT MOST HBCUS,
THERE'S NOT THE OTHER HALF TO MATCH IT WITH.
YOU NEED THE FULL FTE.
BUT THEN YOU HAVE TO BE ABLE TO HIRE THE PERSON.
AND OFTEN HIRING IS SLOW.
AND THEN IF IT'S SO SLOW,
THEN YOU DON'T SPEND THE MONEY,
AND THEN YOU TRY TO ASK FOR CARRY FORWARD,
AND THEN THEY QUESTION YOU ABOUT CARRY FORWARD,
SO IT BECOMES A VICIOUS CYCLE.
SO I DO THINK
EVERYBODY CAN FIND A NICHE
THAT THEY CAN PURSUE,
BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY,
TRY TO COLLABORATE AND PARTNER
OR FIND CONSULTANTS TO WORK WITH YOU,
BECAUSE I THINK THAT EVERYBODY SHOULD BE ABLE
TO MOUNT A LITTLE RESEARCH PROGRAM.
IT CAN GROW AND GROW,
AND I JUST DONE MANY PROJECTS THAT HAD,
LIKE THE MINORITY PARTNERSHIP GRANTS, THE RCMIS,
THEY HAVE SO MANY PROGRAMS OUT HERE
THAT REALLY COULD BENEFIT MANY, MANY PEOPLE.
SO I'LL STOP.
- OKAY, OKAY, WOW, THANK YOU.
FIRST OF ALL, A HAND FOR OUR PANEL.
(ATTENDEES CLAPPING)
THANK YOU SO MUCH,
I MEAN, AGAIN, A LOT OF RICH INFORMATION,
YOU KNOW, FROM VERY DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES,
OBVIOUSLY VERY DIFFERENT INSTITUTIONS AS WELL.
LIKE TO OPEN THE FLOOR.
YOU KNOW, I THINK THE PANELISTS HAVE ALL BEEN VERY CANDID
AND HONEST AND REAL ABOUT THEIR EXPERIENCES
IN TERMS OF, YOU KNOW,
THE DIALOGUE THAT YOU'D LIKE TO HAVE WITH THEM.
SO PLEASE, IF YOU WOULD,
USE YOUR MIC AND INTRODUCE YOURSELF WHEN YOU SPEAK,
AND IT'LL GIVE EVERYBODY SOME CONTEXT
FOR, YOU KNOW, WHERE YOU'RE COMING FROM.
YES, IN THE BACK.
- GOOD AFTERNOON, TONJIA MAY,
NORTH CAROLINA AGRICULTURAL AND TECHNICAL STATE UNIVERSITY.
SPEAKING FROM A SPONSORED PROGRAMS PERSPECTIVE
IN TERMS OF HOW WE CAN BETTER SUPPORT OUR FACULTY,
ONE THING THAT YOU'D NEVER WANNA RUN INTO IS A PROJECT TEAM
THAT RUNS OUTTA STEAM AT THE 11TH HOUR.
AND SO ONE OF THE THINGS
THAT I'VE TALKED TO MY TEAM ABOUT
IS HOW TO PROVIDE BETTER PROJECT MANAGEMENT
AND MAKING SURE THAT FACULTY UNDERSTAND
THE PI DOESN'T HAVE TO DO IT ALONE
AND THAT WE'RE PROVIDING THE TOOLS
AS IT RELATES TO THE BUDGETS,
WHAT NEEDS TO ACTUALLY GO OUT THE DOOR.
BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT I FIND THE CHALLENGE IS,
THAT AT THE 11TH HOUR,
WE'RE TRYING TO HIT THE BUTTON TO GET A PROPOSAL OUT,
AND THEN WE HIT A LOT OF THESE ERRORS.
SO IT'S IMPORTANT THAT YOU DEBRIEF WITH YOUR TEAM.
I ALWAYS SAY, YOU KNOW,
IT'S A HEARTBREAKER TO SEE A PROJECT TEAM WORK REALLY HARD
AND THE PROPOSAL DOESN'T GO OUT THE DOOR,
BUT IT IS A LESSON LEARNED.
SO HAVE A DEBRIEFING WITH THE TEAM,
FIND OUT EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED
SO AT THAT NEXT SUBMISSION,
YOU'VE ALREADY WORKED OUT THE KINKS, RIGHT?
AND PIS, YOU CAN'T DO IT ALONE.
YOU NEED TO LEVERAGE YOUR PROJECT TEAM,
ASSIGN SOMEONE TO LEAD EACH CORE AND PROJECT
SO THAT YOUR SPONSORED PROJECTS TEAM ACTUALLY KNOWS
WHO THEY SHOULD BE WORKING WITH,
AND I SEE THAT A LOT.
SOMETIMES THE PI WANTS TO DO EVERYTHING
AND THEY'RE TRYING TO PUSH ALL OF THOSE DOCUMENTS
TO THE SPONSORED PROGRAMS OFFICE,
AND IT'S A CHALLENGE.
SO THAT'S, YOU KNOW, ALWAYS DEBRIEF.
TRY TO START AT LEAST A YEAR IN ADVANCE
AND START THINKING ABOUT IT.
HAVE SOME REGULAR MEETINGS
THAT INCLUDE YOUR GRANTS ADMINISTRATORS.
I DO NOT ASSIGN JUST ONE GRANT ADMIN TO WORK ON A LARGE,
FOR EXAMPLE, A U54,
IT'S TOO MUCH FOR ONE PERSON, RIGHT?
SO YOU NEED TO HAVE AT LEAST TWO GRANT ADMINISTRATORS
THAT IS GOING TO ASSIST WITH THAT PROPOSAL SUBMISSION.
ONE PERSON SHOULD BE IDENTIFIED TO HELP ON THE BUDGET SIDE
TO GET THAT BUDGET KEYED INTO ASSIST,
AND THEN THE OTHER PERSON IS GONNA BE WORKING
WITH THE FACULTY, THAT PROJECT TEAM
TO SECURE THE OTHER DOCUMENTS.
SO THAT'S A LESSON LEARNED FROM THE A&T'S PERSPECTIVE
IN THE SPONSORED PROGRAMS OFFICE.
- [JEAN] THANK YOU FOR SHARING THAT.
ARE THERE QUESTIONS EITHER FOR THE GROUP OR INDIVIDUALLY?
YES.
- HI, GOOD AFTERNOON.
I'M MICHELLE HOSPITAL FROM FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL
UNIVERSITY,
RCMI DOWN IN MIAMI, FLORIDA.
THANK YOU TO THE PANEL,
IT WAS GREAT ADVICE.
SOMETHING THAT ISN'T SPOKEN ABOUT A LOT
AND I STRUGGLE WITH MENTORING MY POSTDOCS ON
IS WHEN THEY RECEIVE THEIR SUMMARY STATEMENT
AND THEN THEY HAVE TO,
THEY FINALLY, YOU KNOW, PICK THEMSELVES OFF THE GROUND
AND START WRITING A RESUBMISSION,
IS HOW DO YOU TAKE 14 PAGES OF COMMENTS
AND PUT YOUR RESPONSE INTO ONE PAGE?
AND SO HOW DO YOU MAKE DECISIONS
ABOUT WHAT IS THE MOST IMPORTANT
IN TERMS OF WHAT YOU SHOULD EXPLICITLY ADDRESS
IN YOUR RESPONSES? SO I'D LOVE TO HEAR FROM THE PANEL
WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT THAT.
- ANYONE WANNA TAKE THAT FIRST?
LUCILE, I SEE YOU AND MICHELLE BOTH,
I'M SORRY, MELISSA,
BOTH REACHING FOR YOUR MIC.
- THAT'S A REAL PROBLEM,
NOT ONLY FOR POSTDOCS, FOR EVERYBODY,
NO MATTER WHAT THE GRANT MECHANISM IS.
YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE TO,
I WOULD SAY, FOCUS ON THE AIMS.
STAY FOCUSED ON THE AIMS,
AND IF THEY'VE ADDRESSED THINGS
IN THE MAJOR PART OF YOUR AIMS,
I WOULD START THERE
AND GO DOWN TO WHAT THE MINOR THINGS ARE.
START WITH ALL,
JUST LEAD WITH ALL OF THE MAJOR ISSUES.
AND YOU MIGHT SAY THERE'RE 14 PAGES OF MAJOR ISSUES.
THEY KNOW THEY ONLY ALLOW ONE PAGE OF REVISION,
BUT THAT'S NOT THE WORST PART.
THE WORST PART IS WHEN YOU SUBMIT YOUR GRANT,
YOU MIGHT GET ANOTHER SET OF REVIEWERS,
SO IT WON'T REALLY MATTER.
SO YOU JUST NEED TO ADDRESS EVERY ISSUE IN THE GRANT
REGARDLESS OF WHETHER YOU CAN ACTUALLY ANNOTATE IT
IN THE INTRODUCTION TO THE RESPONSE.
BUT WE'VE HAD THAT HAPPEN SO OFTEN,
THERE'S ANOTHER SET OF REVIEWERS,
SO THEY MIGHT EVEN THINK THOSE ISSUES WERE BIG ISSUES,
SO YOU PICK OUT WHAT YOU THINK ARE THE BIG ISSUES
AND HIGHLIGHT THEM IN THAT ONE PAGER.
BUT YOU TRY TO ADDRESS AS MANY
IF NOT ALL OF THOSE RESPONSES.
AND IF THERE ARE THINGS THAT YOU THINK WERE TOTALLY WRONG,
THAT'S SOMETHING YOU SHOULD PUT IN THE INTRO.
LIKE, YOU KNOW, "REGARDING THIS COMMENT,
WE DO NOT AGREE BECAUSE OF THIS RATIONALE,"
BUT THAT'S ALL I CAN SAY ABOUT THAT.
BUT IT HAPPENS TO EVERYBODY,
NOT JUST POSTDOCS.
- [JEAN] MELISSA.
- SO,
SO YEAH, I HAVE HELPED MY COLLEAGUES
IN OUR COBRE GRANTS DEAL WITH THIS A LOT.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE SAY
IS FIRST TO FOCUS ON THE REVIEW SUMMARY,
BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE PEOPLE TALKED ABOUT THE SCORE DRIVING,
THE THINGS THAT REALLY ROSE TO THE TOP OF THEIR CONCERNS
AND BECAME SOMETHING THAT EVERYBODY IN THE ROOM HEARD.
THE OTHER THING, OF COURSE, IS THE APPROACH.
YOU FOCUS ON THE APPROACH
BECAUSE APPROACH SCORES ARE BASICALLY THE IMPACT SCORE.
SO, THE THINGS THAT REVIEWERS DISLIKED ABOUT THE APPROACH
ARE WHAT IS GONNA HAVE BEEN SCORE-DRIVING FOR THEM,
FOR THE MOST PART.
I AM MAYBE A LITTLE DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE
ABOUT THINGS YOU DON'T AGREE WITH,
WHICH IS, YOU KNOW,
THAT IT DOESN'T HELP TO REBUT
BECAUSE REVIEWERS AREN'T GONNA LIKE IT.
AND REMIND THE INVESTIGATORS
THAT WHEN THEY RESUBMIT,
THEIR NEW REVIEWERS WILL LOOK
AT THAT SUMMARY STATEMENT, RIGHT?
THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE GONNA SEE.
SO THAT'S WHY IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT
TO ADDRESS THE SCORE-DRIVING THINGS.
NOW, REVIEWERS HAVE PLENTY OF OTHER THINGS TO READ.
THEY'RE NOT GONNA READ THROUGH IT IN DETAIL, RIGHT?
THEY'RE GONNA LOOK AT WHAT THE SUMMARY STATEMENT WAS
AND THEN SKIM DOWN TO PROBABLY SEE THE PERSON
THAT SCORED IT THE HIGHEST
AND THEN SEE WHAT THEY DIDN'T LIKE ABOUT IT, RIGHT?
SO WE KIND OF FOCUS ON THOSE THINGS.
AND I ALSO TELL 'EM,
IDENTIFY THE STRENGTHS TOO,
THAT THE INTRODUCTION,
I THINK, SHOULD HAVE AT LEAST ONE SENTENCE
THAT CALLS OUT WHATEVER WAS THE COMMON STRENGTH
TO PUT A LITTLE MORE POSITIVE SPIN ON IT.
AND I HAVE SEEN,
I HAD ONE OF MY ADVISEES WENT
FROM NO SCORE
TO A SCORE OF 17
BASED ON THE RESPONSE TO THE REVIEW
BECAUSE THEY WERE ABLE TO DESIGN NEW EXPERIMENTS
THAT EXACTLY ADDRESSED THE MAJOR CONCERNS OF REVIEWERS.
AND IT CAN REALLY MAKE A BIG DIFFERENCE
IN WHETHER A PROPOSAL GETS SCORED OR NOT,
GETS FUNDED OR NOT.
- [JEAN] OKAY.
YES, JENNIFER, GO AHEAD.
- SORRY, JENNIFER QUINLAN
FROM PRAIRIE VIEW A&M UNIVERSITY.
ALL MY FUNDING IS WITH USDA,
SO THIS, IT'S VERY SIMILAR BUT NOVEL.
CAN I ASSUME THAT ALL OF THE REVIEWERS,
THAT THE SECOND SET OF REVIEWERS DO SEE
ALL OF THE FIRST SET OF REVIEWERS' COMMENTS?
SO, LIKE, YOU CAN'T GET OUT OF THAT ONE PAGE,
THEY COULD GO BACK AND LOOK AT WHAT YOU DIDN'T ADDRESS.
- THAT'S CORRECT. - OKAY.
- CAN I JUST MAKE A FOLLOW-UP?
THERE'S SOME REVIEWERS THAT SKIM THE WHOLE GRANT
AND DON'T READ THE SUMMARY STATEMENT
AND SIT THERE WITH PEOPLE.
SO THEIR JOB IS TO READ THE WHOLE GRANT THROUGH,
BUT THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO SKIM,
AND WE'VE WATCHED THAT,
SO JUST KNOW THAT
IT'S NOT AS KOSHER AS YOU MIGHT WANT IT TO BE,
BUT FOR THE MOST PART, IT IS.
AND THE FIRST REVIEWER REALLY PUTS SO MUCH WEIGHT
ON EVERYONE ELSE WHEN THEY REVIEW IT,
UNLESS SOMEBODY JUST TOTALLY IS AGAINST WHAT THEY SAID.
THEY HAVE A LOT OF WEIGHT
IN TERMS OF HOW THE VOTE'S GONNA GO.
- [JEAN] YES, DEEPAK, GO AHEAD.
- DEEPAK KUMAR, NORTH CAROLINA CENTRAL UNIVERSITY.
SEVERAL OF YOU HIGHLIGHTED THE ROLE
OF INTEGRATING RESEARCH INTO INSTITUTIONAL SYSTEMS.
YOU TALKED ABOUT HUMAN RESOURCES,
TALKED ABOUT THE SUBCONTRACT,
TALK ABOUT THE RESOURCES.
HOW DO YOU NAVIGATE, YOU KNOW,
THROUGH THE PROCESSES WHEN YOU ARE HIRED
AT INSTITUTIONS THAT ARE LOW IN RESOURCES
AND YOU'RE COMING FROM OTHER INSTITUTIONS
WHERE YOU DON'T HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE OTHER ASPECTS,
SUCH AS BIOSKETCHES AND EVERYTHING ELSE
WHEN YOU SUBMIT THE GRANT?
AND ALSO WHEN YOU IMPLEMENT THE GRANT AS WELL,
HOW DO YOU NAVIGATE TO THE PROCESS?
THAT'S PART A.
AND PART B FOR DR. ADAMS-CAMPBELL,
I MEAN, YOU HAVE VERY SUCCESSFULLY COLLABORATED
WITH LOW-RESOURCE INSTITUTIONS, MSIS,
AND VARIOUS COLLABORATIONS,
AND YOU HIGHLIGHTED
WHAT SOME INSTITUTIONS ARE NOT ABLE TO DO.
BUT HOW DO YOU NAVIGATE THROUGH THIS AT YOUR INSTITUTIONS,
THE RESEARCH-INTENSIVE INSTITUTIONS,
TO MAKE SURE THAT THE PARTNERSHIP IS ALIVE,
REMAINS ALIVE,
AND IS SUCCESSFUL DESPITE ALL THESE DEFICIENCIES
THAT YOU HIGHLIGHTED?
SO TWO PARTS.
- LET ME TAKE THAT QUESTION FIRST,
AND THEN YOU CAN HAVE
ALL THE OTHER THINGS HE SAID. (MELISSA LAUGHS)
I PARTNER WITH MY FORMER STUDENTS THAT ARE NOW FACULTY,
SENIOR LEADERS, PEOPLE THAT I'VE HIRED,
LIKE, A LOT OF PEOPLE I'VE HIRED AT HOWARD
WHEN I WAS THERE FOR 18 YEARS,
SO THEY KNOW I WILL KILL THEM IF THEY MESS ME UP.
(ATTENDEES LAUGHING)
BUT THE REALITY OF IT IS PEOPLE WERE TRAINED UP,
I HIRED PEOPLE,
I DEPEND ON THOSE INDIVIDUALS.
SO THEY WANNA PARTNER WITH ME, THAT'S FINE,
IF THEY SAY THIS PERSON IS GOOD TO WORK WITH,
BUT THEY ALSO KNOW THAT THAT'S HOW I OPERATE.
IF YOU'RE NOT GONNA DO THE JOB,
YOU'RE GONNA GET CUT OUT REALLY QUICKLY.
SO IT'S BEEN VERY EFFECTIVE.
WE STILL HAVE A GRANT RIGHT NOW WITH HOWARD,
AND HOWARD'S ON THE CTSA.
AND, I MEAN, JUST BEEN WORKING CONSTANTLY
TO MAKE CERTAIN WE TRY TO KEEP PARTNERSHIPS GOING.
SO, WORK WITH PEOPLE THAT I TRUST,
WORK WITH PEOPLE THAT I KNOW HAVE THE EXPERIENCE,
AND WORK WITH PEOPLE THAT I KNOW WOULD ENJOY BENEFITING
FROM HAVING THE RESOURCES PLANTED ON THEM,
SO THAT'S HOW THAT'S DONE.
FORGOT THE OTHER QUESTION.
- [JEAN] YEAH, DEEPAK,
CAN YOU REPEAT YOUR FIRST QUESTION MAYBE FOR-
- WELL, I THINK THE FIRST QUESTION WAS FOR EVERYBODY
IN TERMS OF, LIKE,
HOW DO YOU NAVIGATE THROUGH THE INSTITUTIONAL SYSTEMS
AS YOU BUILD YOUR RESEARCH?
LIKE HUMAN RESOURCES, TEACHING LOAD,
YOU KNOW, THE SPONSOR PROGRAMS.
AND SO YOU'RE BASICALLY TASKED
WITH NOT ONLY DOING RESEARCH,
NOT ONLY SUBMITTING GRANTS,
BUT ALSO MAKING SURE THAT THINGS RUN SMOOTHLY
AND YOU HAVE TIME TO DO THAT.
- [JEAN] YOU GUYS, GO AHEAD.
- YEAH.
I START THAT. (LAUGHS)
I THINK IT'S MOSTLY SKILLS,
DEVELOPING YOUR SKILLS,
SO THAT'S THE FACULTY NEED TO DO.
I THINK WHAT THE INSTITUTIONS CAN DO
IS TO PROVIDE WORKSHOPS FOR SKILL DEVELOPMENT.
ONE THING THAT I USUALLY SAY,
WHEN I TALK TO MY STUDENTS, FOR EXAMPLE,
I SAY IT'S BUSINESS OF SCIENCE.
YOU GOTTA KNOW MANY, MANY THINGS.
IN MANY INSTITUTIONS,
THE HIGHER-END INSTITUTIONS,
YOU DON'T NEED TO DEAL WITH A LOT OF THINGS,
INCLUDING, FOR EXAMPLE, BUDGET.
YOU DON'T NEED TO MANAGE BUDGET,
THERE IS A PERSON THAT DOES THAT FOR YOU.
YOU DON'T NEED TO MANAGE DOCUMENTATIONS,
THERE'S A PERSON THAT DOES THAT FOR YOU.
BUT IN MY CASE, AT LEAST,
AND MANY INSTITUTIONS
THAT ARE PROBABLY THE TARGET OF THIS,
THIS WORKSHOP,
THAT DOESN'T EXIST, RIGHT?
SO THE PIS NEED TO KNOW SOME OF THAT SCALE.
SO I THINK WORKSHOPS FROM THE INSTITUTIONS,
THIS SORT OF WORKSHOPS DEFINITELY WORK.
BUT I THINK EACH INSTITUTION SHOULD PROBABLY THINK
ABOUT HOW TO HAVE THOSE MANAGEMENT,
YOU KNOW, WORK MANAGEMENT
SKILL DEVELOPMENT WORKSHOPS FOR THEIR FACULTY AS WELL.
SOME OF THAT IS SOMETHING THAT YOU LEARN
THROUGH YOUR ACTIVITIES IN THE PAST.
I HAPPENED TO BE ABLE TO WORK WITH MY PI
WHEN I WAS A POSTDOC,
AND HE GAVE ME A LOT OF EXPOSURE TO A LOT OF THESE THINGS
BECAUSE I WAS A POSTDOC IN A R02 INSTITUTION,
SO I HAD TO DO BUDGETING,
HELPING HIM BUDGET.
SO I LEARNED.
THAT HELPED A LOT.
BUT,
NOW, ONE THING THAT CAME TO MY MIND
AS WE WERE TALKING WAS,
I'M CHANGING THE GEARS, SORRY,
BUT THOUGHT THAT IT'S A GOOD OPPORTUNITY TO TALK ABOUT THAT.
IT'S ABOUT THAT INITIAL PRELIMINARY RESULT
AND SOMETHING THAT THE FACULTY SHOW.
THERE IS A PRODUCTIVITY GOING ON,
THERE IS SOMETHING THAT IS, YOU KNOW, PROMISING,
SO YOU CAN BUILD BASED ON THAT.
I WAS JUST WONDERING IF WE COULD THINK ABOUT SEED FUNDINGS
THAT COME FROM INSTITUTIONS LIKE NIH, FOR EXAMPLE.
AND THESE DON'T NEED TO BE VERY BIG.
BUT FACULTY THAT DON'T HAVE PRELIMINARY RESULTS
DON'T HAVE YET ESTABLISHED WORK,
THEY COULD APPLY FOR A VERY SMALL AMOUNT OF FUNDING,
BUT THAT WOULD LIFT THEM UP A BIT
JUST TO DO THAT INITIAL WORK.
LIKE, SOMETIMES 5,000 GOES A LONG WAY.
JUST FRUIT FOR THOUGHT,
JUST CAME TO MY MIND.
- [JEAN] SO, KELLY, DID YOU WANNA ADD TO THAT?
- SO I AGREE WITH WHAT REZA SAID IN THE SENSE THAT,
YOU KNOW, ALSO AT MY TYPE OF INSTITUTION,
WE HAVE TO DO, THE FACULTY HAS TO,
THE PI HAS TO DO ALL THE BUDGETING,
ALL THE ADMINISTRATIVE WORK,
AND IT IS A LOT,
ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU'RE ON YOUR FIRST GRANT
TRYING TO FIGURE EVERYTHING OUT.
BUT SO A LOT OF TIMES WHAT I WIND UP DOING
IS ACTUALLY I WOULD, YOU KNOW,
JUST TALK TO THE OTHER PEOPLE AT MY INSTITUTION
THAT HAVE GRANTS, TO SAY,
"WELL, WHAT DO YOU DO WHEN YOU HAVE,
YOU KNOW, WHEN THIS COMES UP?"
AND WHAT I FOUND IS THAT, YOU KNOW,
EVEN THOUGH THE ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT,
YOU KNOW, IS LIMITED,
YOU KNOW, EVERYONE IS WILLING TO HELP,
AND YOU DO HAVE TO REACH OUT TO THEM AND BE PATIENT
BECAUSE THEY WON'T BE ABLE TO GET BACK TO YOU.
AND THE OTHER THING I DO IS THEN
I ALSO REACH OUT TO MY OWN PROFESSIONAL NETWORK.
AND OFTENTIMES WHAT I FOUND IS THAT SOMETIMES
EVEN IF PEOPLE CAN'T HELP ME,
THEY'LL REFER ME TO OTHER PIS AT OTHER INSTITUTIONS.
AND WHAT'S REALLY SURPRISING TO ME IS THAT THE PIS
THAT DON'T NECESSARILY KNOW YOU
SOMETIMES ARE THE ONES WHO ARE MOST WILLING TO HELP TOO,
SO DON'T HESITATE TO REACH OUT
EVEN TO PEOPLE YOU DON'T NECESSARILY THINK,
YOU KNOW, MIGHT RESPOND TO YOU.
- AND I JUST WANNA ADD,
ONE THING ABOUT,
BACK TO ADDRESSING YOUR ORIGINAL QUESTION
ABOUT HOW TO HELP BIS NAVIGATE INSTITUTIONALLY.
AND TO STRESS, AGAIN, TO THANK NIGMS
AND SAY FOR US IT WAS HAVING THE CENTER,
BECAUSE ONE OF THE THINGS THAT MY JOB WAS,
AS DIRECTOR, WAS TO BE THAT SUPPORT PERSON
TO HELP OUR PIS SUBMIT THAT GRANT.
AND WE HAD THE RESOURCES TO HAVE A PROGRAM COORDINATOR,
TO HAVE A GRANT ADMINISTRATOR
THAT COULD HELP PULL ALL THOSE PIECES TOGETHER.
WE HAD TEMPLATES FOR ALL THE DIFFERENT PARTS,
WE CONSTRUCTED TEMPLATES FOR FACILITIES.
PEOPLE DIDN'T HAVE TO COME UP WITH THEIR OWN FACILITIES,
IT WOULD LIKE, HERE'S THE TEMPLATE,
PUT IN YOUR LAB, RIGHT?
ADD THE THINGS FOR YOUR LAB.
AND BEFORE WE RUN OUT OF TIME AND QUIT,
I WOULD JUST, 'CAUSE THIS IS A DIALOGUE,
IF I CAN JUST SPEAK TO NIH,
FOR INSTITUTIONS,
THESE EMERGING RESEARCH INSTITUTIONS
THAT AREN'T IN IDEA STATES,
THEY DON'T HAVE THAT,
THEY DON'T HAVE ACCESS.
AND I WOULD SAY, IF THERE WAS ONE THING THAT COULD,
I MEAN, IT'S BEEN TRANSFORMATIVE FOR DEL STATE,
IT'S THAT COBRE GRANTS
AND THE SIMILAR THINGS THROUGH INBRE.
IF THERE WAS A WAY TO MAKE THOSE COBRE-TYPE CENTERS
FOR EMERGING RESEARCH INSTITUTIONS
AND A MECHANISM LIKE THAT FOR EMERGING RESEARCH INSTITUTIONS
BEYOND THE IDEA STATES,
I THINK THAT COULD TRANSLATE OUR SUCCESS
TO OTHER INSTITUTIONS.
- I WAS CHECKING WITH DR. LORSCH
TO SEE IF HE WANTED TO RESPOND.
OTHER QUESTIONS?
WE HAVE TIME FOR A COUPLE MORE BEFORE WE END.
YEAH.
OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS
OR OTHER FEEDBACK FROM ANYONE IN THE ROOM?
YEAH, DEEPAK, GO AHEAD.
- I CAN JUST ADD THAT I THINK WHAT,
AND WE'RE ALL STRUGGLING WITH THIS,
I THINK WHAT I'VE SEEN IS THAT HAVING CONVERSATION
WITH NON-RESEARCH FOLKS
AT OUR INSTITUTIONS HELPS.
IF WE REALLY WANT TO BUILD RESEARCH,
I THINK IT IS EVERYBODY'S RESPONSIBILITY
AND NOT ONLY THE CENTER'S, YOU KNOW, RESPONSIBILITY.
I THINK THAT'S WHAT I'VE SEEN WORKS VERY WELL.
AND ONE OF THE QUESTION THAT I HAVE FOR, FOR EXAMPLE,
A&T, I HEARD BOTH FROM THE FACULTY SIDE
AND ALSO FROM THE SPONSORED PROGRAM SIDE,
I THINK MOVING TO R1 IS GREAT,
BUT ARE THERE ANY CONCESSIONS GIVEN TO THE FACULTY
TO DO RESEARCH FROM THE ADMINISTRATION
WITH THIS WHOLE STRATEGIC IDEA
OF MOVING TO AN R1 INSTITUTION SO FACULTY HAVE MORE TIME?
SO FOR EXAMPLE,
HAS THE TEACHING LOAD BEEN SLASHED INTO HALF BROADLY
OR SOME OTHER, YOU KNOW,
INSTITUTIONAL INITIATIVES WHICH CAN HELP FACULTY?
HAS THAT BEEN DONE?
- CAN I JUST SAY, FROM MY EXPERIENCE,
BEING AT A HBCU,
TEACHING IS HUGE,
YOU KNOW, AND THAT TAKES UP A LOT OF TIME
FOR MANY FACULTY MEMBERS.
BUT THE INSTITUTION IS ALWAYS WILLING
TO WRITE IN THE LETTER,
PEOPLE WILL BE GIVEN FREE TIME TO DO RESEARCH
AND RELEASE TIME.
AND THAT OFTEN DOESN'T HAPPEN.
AND TO DO RESEARCH AND TEACH IS A LOT.
BEING IN A CANCER CENTER,
I DO SO LITTLE TEACHING,
I WOULDN'T EVEN TELL YOU WHAT I DID,
BECAUSE IT DOESN'T COUNT.
BUT THE REALITY OF IT IS,
TO BE A VERY STRONG RESEARCHER,
A LOT OF IT'S GONNA BE DONE ON YOUR OWN BALL OF TIME.
AND I THINK PEOPLE HAVE TO REALIZE THAT,
BECAUSE IF YOU REALLY WANT TO GET GOING,
IT'S NOT GONNA BE WHAT YOU DO DURING YOUR REGULAR WEEKDAY,
'CAUSE IT'S ALREADY BOGGED DOWN.
SO A LOT OF WORK IS DONE LATER
AND SEVEN DAYS A WEEK TO REALLY GET GET GOING,
SO PEOPLE DON'T LIKE THAT,
BUT THAT'S HOW I ENVISION
HOW RESEARCH HAS REALLY CRAFTED THE WAY WE MOVE FORWARD,
EVEN TO THIS DAY.
- [JEAN] YEAH, ONE QUESTION, SHAWN,
AND THEN IN THE BACK TOO.
- SO. I CAN SPEAK TO THAT A LITTLE BIT
ABOUT RELEASE TIME AT HBCUS.
SO NORTH CAROLINA,
AS DR. KUMAR KNOWS, REZA KNOWS,
THE TEACHING HOURS HAVE GONE TO 12 HOURS PER SEMESTER
IN THE ACADEMIC YEAR.
SO THAT'S REQUIRED US TO UPDATE
OUR TEACHING LOAD POLICIES.
AND THE WAY THAT WE'VE DONE IT,
AND I SUSPECT THE WAY A&T HAS DONE IT,
IS TO ALLOW THE DEANS TO HAVE SOME DISCRETION
OVER HOW RESEARCH GETS ACCOMMODATED FOR WITH FACULTY.
SO THERE'S NOT A STRICT EQUATION/CALCULATION THAT'S
DONE,
BUT IN GENERAL,
I THINK THAT IF FACULTY ARE BRINGING IN 60% OF THEIR SALARY,
THEY'RE GOING TO GET RELEASE TIME
FOR SIX OF THOSE EIGHT THREE-CREDIT-HOUR CLASSES.
SO THAT SORT OF THING IS HAPPENING,
AT LEAST IN NORTH CAROLINA.
AND ADMINISTRATIONS,
AS THEY TURN OVER AND CHANGE,
ARE REALIZING THAT ALTERNATIVE REVENUE STREAMS
LIKE RESEARCH AT HBCUS
IS REALLY AN IMPORTANT THING TO INVEST IN.
AND SO I THINK THAT WE'RE GETTING THERE,
BUT WE'RE NOT ALL THE WAY THERE.
- [JEAN] THANK YOU.
GO AHEAD, PLEASE.
- SO IN TERMS OF NORTH CAROLINA A&T,
THE UNIVERSITY HAS A COMMITMENT,
SOME STRATEGIC INVESTMENTS
IN TERMS OF PUTTING RESEARCH ADMINISTRATORS IN THE COLLEGES
TO REDUCE THE BURDEN.
THAT'S PART OF THE, YOU KNOW, THE ISSUE
THAT A LOT OF OUR FACULTY ARE DEALING WITH.
THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR MANAGING THE LABS,
HIRING STUDENTS,
PROCESSING THEIR OWN PROCUREMENT REQUISITIONS.
WE ARE ALSO INVESTING IN TRAINING THE CURRENT STAFF
THAT WE HAVE IN PLACE
BECAUSE WE HAVE TO PROFESSIONALIZE
RESEARCH ADMINISTRATION
NOT ONLY AT THE CENTRAL OFFICE
BUT ALSO WITHIN THE COLLEGES
SO THAT THEY'RE NOT JUST WHAT WE CONSIDER TO BE ADMINS,
BUT THEY ALSO UNDERSTAND NOT ONLY THE INSTITUTIONAL
AND STATE REQUIREMENTS
BUT ALSO THE FEDERAL REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS.
SO THOSE ARE SOME OF THE STRATEGIC INVESTMENTS
THAT WE'RE DOING ON OUR CAMPUS.
- [JEAN] THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING THAT.
- AND ONE THING THAT I WANNA ADD IS,
AND THIS IS A WAY UPPER THAN MY POSITION,
BUT I WAS JUST THINKING
THAT CENTERS OF EXCELLENCE USUALLY HELP IN THIS REGARD,
BECAUSE THEY DO,
SO THEIR REGULATIONS ARE A BIT DIFFERENT,
SO YOU MAY CONSIDER THOSE
AS POSSIBLE WAYS
OF INCREASING THE RESEARCH FOR FACULTY.
- [JEAN] OKAY, THANKS, REZA.
THINK WE HAVE TIME FOR MAYBE ONE MORE,
AND, PLEASE, GO AHEAD.
- MY NAME IS MANSOUR MORTAZAVI,
I'M VICE CHANCELLOR FOR RESEARCH AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT,
AND ALSO I'M PROFESSOR, STILL DO RESEARCH,
AT THE UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS AT PINE BLUFF.
I DON'T THINK I HAVE A QUESTION,
I HAVE JUST A COMMENT.
THOSE SCHOOLS THAT THEY CAN'T REALLY AFFORD THE RELEASE TIME
BECAUSE THIS IS VERY EXPENSIVE
COMPARED TO DO INDIRECT COST OR FRINGE BENEFIT,
ALL THIS IS JUST TOO MUCH.
THEY CAN'T EVEN AFFORD THAT.
HOWEVER, WHAT I DID WAS I JUST PLAYED THE POLITICS
OF THE UNIVERSITY.
I HAD HALF A MILLION DOLLARS GRANT FROM DOD
THAT WAS EQUIPMENT GRANT.
AND ONE OF THE EQUIPMENT WAS IN,
YOU KNOW, IN OUR SYSTEMS STUFF
THAT I HAD SUPPOSED TO SHARE WITH ALL THE FACULTY ANYWAY.
BUT I WENT TO CHAIRMAN, SAID,
"I GIVE THIS 150K INSTRUMENT
TO HELP ALL THE FACULTY HERE
IF YOU GIVE ME ONLINE COURSES."
BECAUSE EVEN IF YOU GET RELEASE TIME,
THAT DOESN'T REALLY HELP MUCH
BECAUSE RESEARCHERS NEED BLOCK OF TIME.
YOU CANNOT HAVE GO RESEARCH,
HAVE ONE HOUR OF HERE, ONE HOUR OF THERE.
THEN I WORK IT OUT,
THEY GAVE ME ONLINE COURSE,
WHICH I HAD DEVELOPED,
THEN IT GAVE ME A GOOD BLOCK OF TIME,
SIT AND THINK AND WRITE.
AFTER I GOT A LITTLE BIT MORE SUCCESS IN THESE THINGS,
I PICKED MY OWN CLASSES,
YOU KNOW, WHEN I WANNA TEACH,
WHEN I WANNA DO THINGS.
THIS MAY NOT WORK EVERYWHERE,
BUT THE FIRST THING,
I STARTED WITH THE CHAIR,
YOU KNOW, THEN D.
YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU GET A BIT OLD FOR A DOCTOR,
THEY ACTUALLY REALIZE THEY ACCOMMODATE YOU.
THAT'S IT.
- [JEAN] OKAY, THANK YOU FOR THAT.
JENNIFER, ONE MORE, YES?
- [JENNIFER] DO YOU HAVE TIME FOR ONE MORE?
- [JEAN] SURE, GO AHEAD.
- FIRST, LUCILE, I APPRECIATE YOU SAYING
THIS IS A SEVEN-DAY-A-WEEK JOB,
'CAUSE IT'S NOT POPULAR,
AND THERE'S TIMES THAT I'M ABOUT
TO WRITE RIGHT THROUGH THE MEMORIAL DAY WEEKEND,
AND PEOPLE DON'T WANNA HEAR THAT,
AND ESPECIALLY THESE DAYS,
SO I APPRECIATE THAT.
BUT THEN THE OTHER THING,
I REALLY APPRECIATED YOUR COMMENT ON MENTORS.
AND I AM WALKING INTO A POSITION
AS A DIRECTOR OF A RESEARCH INSTITUTE,
AND THE UNIVERSITY IS TRANSITIONING
TO BE MORE RESEARCH-INTENSIVE,
AND THERE REALLY ISN'T THAT HISTORY
OF MENTORING AROUND RESEARCH SET UP WITHIN THE UNIVERSITY.
I MEAN, AND I CAN MENTOR A FEW PEOPLE,
BUT I CAN'T MENTOR,
I MEAN, HOW WOULD YOU RECOMMEND GOING ABOUT STARTING
TO SET UP THAT MENTORING MINDSET
WITHIN THE UNIVERSITY
WHEN YOU DON'T HAVE PEOPLE IN SENIOR POSITIONS
WHO WERE TENURED ON RESEARCH NECESSARILY?
- I HAVE TO SAY, WHEN I FIRST WENT TO HOWARD UNIVERSITY,
RESEARCH WAS NOT IN THE MISSION STATEMENT.
IT WAS ABOUT TEACHING
AND UNIVERSITY SERVICES AND CLINICAL SERVICES.
AND SO THE NEW PRESIDENT ADDED RESEARCH,
AND I WENT TO THEM AND SAID,
"SO NOW YOU'VE ADDED RESEARCH,
YOU HAVE ALL THESE TEACHERS,
WHAT DO YOU DO?"
YOU TRY TO MOLD THEM INTO RESEARCHERS.
BUT TO YOUR POINT ABOUT MENTORING,
I THINK THAT THIS IS WHERE YOU HAVE TO GO
BEYOND YOUR BORDERS, LITERALLY,
AND NETWORK.
NIH, THERE ARE SO MANY EVENTS AND MEETINGS
AND ALL THAT COME ABOUT,
EVEN THESE HERE RIGHT NOW,
THAT YOU HAVE TO REALLY FOCUS ON NETWORKING.
NETWORKING HELPS YOU PICK UP MENTORS AS WELL.
AND PEOPLE, YOUR MENTEES,
THEY HAVE TO GO TO MEETINGS.
PEOPLE CAN'T AFFORD TO GO AWAY TO MEETINGS.
THERE ARE MEETINGS IN SO MANY DIFFERENT CITIES
AND STATES ACROSS THE COUNTRY ALL THE TIME,
THEY HAVE TO BEGIN TO MENTOR.
FIND NETWORKS SO THEY CAN IDENTIFY MENTORS.
DON'T EXPECT IT ALL IN THAT ONE GROUP,
AND IF YOU HAVE A PLACE THAT YOU COLLABORATE WITH,
TRY TO GET A FEW PEOPLE AND START THAT.
WE HAVE MENTORING WRITING GROUPS
WHERE NOT THAT YOU HELP THEM WRITE,
BUT YOU BRING PEOPLE TOGETHER,
AND THEY MIGHT WRITE FOR ONE OR TWO HOURS.
AND THERE'S CHECK-INS AND ALL,
JUST LIKE, HOW ARE YOU DOING?
BUT IT GIVES THEM A TIME,
THE CAMARADERIE THAT THEY'RE TOGETHER,
BUT THEY'RE WORKING ON THEIR OWN PROJECTS.
SO THAT'S HOW WE ADDRESS THAT NOW,
BECAUSE EVERYBODY EVEN AT GEORGETOWN,
WE HAVE TO GET MENTORS FROM OTHER PLACES STILL
FOR CERTAIN THINGS, YOU KNOW.
SO THAT'S, I WOULD SAY,
NETWORKING IS ONE WAY.
IT'S A BIG WAY,
AND I THINK THAT'S A POSITION
THAT YOU SHOULD PROBABLY TAKE,
THAT WE NEED TO NETWORK MORE.
- OKAY, GREAT.
THANK YOU SO MUCH, AGAIN,
A HAND FOR OUR PANEL.
(ATTENDEES CLAPPING)
AND THANK YOU VERY MUCH TO EVERYONE
WHO SERVED A LOT OF GREAT DIALOGUE AND GREAT CONVERSATION.
WE'RE GONNA BE TRANSITIONING TO OUR NEXT SESSION,
SO IT'LL JUST BE A COUPLE MINUTES.
AND WOULD LIKE TO ASK DR. CRUMP,
DR. LASH ALSO TO COME UP.
THANK YOU.
(NO AUDIO)
OKAY, WE ARE TRANSITIONING RIGHT INTO OUR NEXT SESSION,
STRATEGIES FOR HELPING YOUR FACULTY DEVELOP
AND SUBMIT COMPETITIVE APPLICATIONS.
SO WE JUST HEARD FROM A PANEL OF,
AGAIN, YOUR PEER FACULTY AND ADMINISTRATORS.
NOW WE ACTUALLY HAVE THE PLEASURE
OF HAVING TWO EXPERIENCED PROGRAM DIRECTORS HERE AT NIH,
DR. TIFFANI BAILEY LASH FROM NIBIB
AND DR. ARIA CRUMP FROM NIDA.
AND THEY'RE GONNA BE SHARING WITH YOU
SOME OF THEIR THOUGHTS.
SO, DR. CRUMP IS GONNA GO FIRST.
- GOOD AFTERNOON, EVERYONE.
IT IS AN HONOR AND A PLEASURE TO BE HERE TODAY.
THIS IS A VERY IMPRESSIVE GROUP,
AND I DON'T TAKE IT LIGHTLY
TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TO YOU.
I THINK THAT THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT MEETING
AND THERE'S SO MANY GOOD IDEAS TO SHARE.
THIS IS TRULY A DIALOGUE,
WE WOULD LIKE TO BE ABLE TO ASK YOU TO INTERRUPT
AS YOU WOULD LIKE TO INTERRUPT
AND ASK WHATEVER QUESTIONS THAT YOU NEED TO ASK OF US.
SO, YOU KNOW NIH MAKES AWARDS TO INSTITUTIONS
THROUGH WHAT WE BELIEVE IS A VERY RIGOROUS
BUT NOT PERFECT PROCESS.
THE DATA SUGGESTS, AS WE HAVE BEEN ALREADY DISCUSSING TODAY,
THAT MANY INSTITUTIONS HAVE SYSTEMS IN PLACE
THAT LEAD TO EXTRAORDINARY SUCCESS IN THEIR AWARDS,
BUT THOSE INSTITUTIONS ARE NO DIFFERENT
FROM OTHER INSTITUTIONS
THAT ALSO ATTRACT HIGHLY ACCOMPLISHED SCIENTIFIC MINDS.
AND IN THIS SESSION,
WE WANT TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT HOW WE MAKE SURE
THAT ALL INSTITUTIONS HAVE THE SAME OPPORTUNITIES
TO HAVE GRANT SUCCESS WITH NIH.
SO, THE GOAL, THE TARGET HERE
IS REALLY HELPING YOU THINK ABOUT
WHAT TO TELL FACULTY
AND WHAT LESSONS, WHAT MESSAGES
TO SEND TO FACULTY PEOPLE.
AND SO IF YOU FEEL DAUNTED BY THAT CHALLENGE
OF BUILDING UP YOUR INSTITUTION'S SUCCESS WITH NIH,
I WOULD ARGUE THAT WE JUST HEARD A WONDERFUL PANEL
AND THERE ARE MANY OTHER SUCCESS STORIES AROUND
AND THAT WE SHOULD BE LEARNING FROM SUCCESS STORIES.
I THINK IT MAKES A WHOLE LOT OF SENSE
TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY
TO TALK TO OUR COLLEAGUES HERE IN THE ROOM
AS WELL AS AROUND THE COUNTRY
WHO ACTUALLY HAVE INCREDIBLE SUCCESS STORIES,
EVEN IF IT'S ONE GRANT, TWO GRANT,
10 GRANTS, RIGHT?
THEY'RE STILL, IN THAT PARTICULAR SITUATION,
REAL SUCCESS STORIES.
IF YOUR FACULTY FEELS SKEPTICAL
WHEN YOU GO TO THEM ABOUT GETTING AWARDS,
OR WORSE, IF THEY FEEL CYNICAL,
REMIND THEM TO REFLECT ON WHAT MADE THEM EXCITED
ABOUT GOING INTO A CAREER IN SCIENCE,
REMIND THEM NOT TO LOSE THAT PASSION,
AND HELP THEM UNDERSTAND
HOW HAVING SUCCESS WITH NIH GRANTS CAN BE A PART
OF THEIR SUCCESS STORY AS A FACULTY PERSON.
AND I'VE HEARD THIS MULTIPLE TIMES TODAY,
AND I JUST WANNA SAY IT,
PLEASE SEND THE MESSAGE
THAT THEY SHOULD NOT SEE THEMSELVES AS AN ISLAND.
THEY DON'T HAVE TO DO EVERYTHING,
THEY DON'T HAVE TO KNOW EVERYTHING,
AND THEY CERTAINLY DON'T HAVE TO KNOW EVERYTHING
WHEN THEY'RE FIRST STARTING OUT.
WHEN THEY GO THROUGH GRADUATE SCHOOL OR PROFESSIONAL SCHOOL
AND EXIT THEIR POSTDOCS,
THERE'S A LOT OF KNOWLEDGE THAT'S MISSING.
AND SO IT'S REALLY, REALLY IMPORTANT
TO HELP THEM UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S TIME TO LEARN
AND THAT THERE IS A LEARNING CURVE
AND THAT THAT'S OKAY.
THERE ARE A NUMBER OF COMPETENCIES
THAT FOLKS WILL NEED TO PICK UP.
AND LET'S SEE.
I WANNA START TODAY BY TALKING A LITTLE,
WE CAN GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE.
DO I HAVE?
THERE WE GO,
TO THE NEXT SLIDE.
OH.
THIS IS REALLY FANCY,
I DON'T KNOW HOW TO MOVE THE SLIDES WITH THIS.
YOU JUST, OH, I SEE IT,
OH, IT'S A TOUCH SCREEN!
OH MY GOSH, THIS IS FANCY, SORRY.
I'M NOT USED TO THIS.
OKAY, SO WHAT BASIC KNOWLEDGE DO FACULTY NEED?
WE'VE TALKED ABOUT A LOT OF THIS TODAY,
BUT I JUST WANTED
TO GO THROUGH IT VERY SUCCINCTLY AND CAPSULIZE.
WHAT IS IT THAT FACULTY NEED TO UNDERSTAND?
ONE OF THE MAIN THINGS IS HOW ARE WE ORGANIZED,
YOU'VE HEARD ABOUT INSTITUTES AND CENTERS.
MY INSTITUTE, BY THE WAY,
WE CALL OURSELVES NIDA,
BUT IT'S THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON DRUG ABUSE.
ALL OF THEM HAVE THESE LITTLE WEIRD ACRONYMS,
BUT THEY ALL HAVE THEIR OWN MISSIONS,
THEY ALL HAVE THEIR OWN BUDGETS,
THEY OFTEN HAVE SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT RULES.
AND SO WHEN YOU'RE WORKING WITH ONE INSTITUTE,
YOU'RE WORKING WITH ONE INSTITUTE.
AND IT'S REALLY HELPFUL TO UNDERSTAND
THAT TALKING TO A PROGRAM PERSON
ISN'T ONLY ABOUT GETTING ADVICE ON THE FIT
FOR THEIR RESEARCH WITH THAT PARTICULAR INSTITUTE,
IT'S ALSO LEARNING
HOW THAT PARTICULAR INSTITUTE DOES ITS BUSINESS.
EACH INSTITUTE HAS ITS OWN STRATEGIC PLAN.
SO IF YOU KNOW YOUR WORK FALLS UNDER THE PURVIEW
OF A PARTICULAR INSTITUTE,
TAKE THE TIME AS A FACULTY PERSON
TO LOOK AT THAT STRATEGIC PLAN
AND GET A GOOD SENSE
OF HOW YOUR SPECIFIC SCIENTIFIC INTEREST FITS.
BECAUSE AT THE END OF THE DAY,
THAT INSTITUTE HAS A SET OF PRIORITIES,
AND THEY'RE THINKING ABOUT THOSE PRIORITIES
WHEN THEY DECIDE WHAT TO FUND.
ONE THING THAT SURPRISED ME
AS A VERY JUNIOR PROGRAM DIRECTOR/PROGRAM OFFICIAL,
THOSE ARE INTERCHANGEABLE,
REALLY SURPRISED ME WAS LEARNING
THAT YOU CAN HAVE AN AMAZING PRIORITY SCORE.
BUT IF THAT PARTICULAR PROJECT IS TOTALLY OUTSIDE
OF THE SCOPE OF THAT INSTITUTE'S INTEREST,
PRIORITIES AT THAT MOMENT,
EVEN IF IT'S ASSIGNED TO THAT INSTITUTE,
THAT INSTITUTE COULD SKIP THAT GRANT.
THAT WAS A LESSON FOR ME.
BUT THE OTHER LESSON IS WHAT I JUST SAID,
IF YOU KNOW ONE INSTITUTE, YOU KNOW ONE INSTITUTE.
AND SOME INSTITUTES HAVE FUNDING PRACTICES
THAT ARE MORE CONDUCIVE
TO THAT TYPE OF DECISION-MAKING THAN OTHERS.
SO UNDERSTANDING INSTITUTES AND CENTERS IS REALLY IMPORTANT.
FUNDING CYCLES.
I'M SURE EVERYONE IN THE ROOM IS AWARE
THAT WITH NIH WE HAVE MULTIPLE TIMES PER YEAR
THAT INVESTIGATORS CAN SUBMIT.
AND IF YOU'RE USING AN INVESTIGATOR-INITIATED
OR A PARENT NOFO, NOTICE OF FUNDING OPPORTUNITY,
AS WE HEARD ABOUT EARLIER,
THEN YOU CAN JUST PICK YOUR DATE, HONESTLY.
SAY, IF YOU KNOW YOU'RE SUBMITTING A R21
AND YOUR PARTICULAR INSTITUTE PARTICIPATES,
YOU HAVE TO MAKE SURE THE INSTITUTE
THAT YOU WOULD WANT TO BE FUNDED BY PARTICIPATES
IN THAT PARTICULAR PARENT MECHANISM, RIGHT?
THE R21, FOR EXAMPLE.
YOU CAN PICK YOUR DATE,
BUT WHAT YOU HAVE TO DO IS YOU PULL UP THAT NOFO
AND YOU LOOK AT THOSE KEY DATES.
AND YOU HAVE TO FIGURE OUT,
OKAY, WHAT IS MY TARGET?
YOU KNOW, YOU SET YOUR TARGET DATE
BASED ON WHAT THOSE RECEIPT DATES ARE.
AND YOU KNOW THAT,
AND I'M GONNA GO OFF SCRIPT A LITTLE AND SAY SOMETHING THAT,
YOU KNOW, NEVER REALLY WANTED TO TELL PEOPLE
BUT I KINDA WANTED TO TELL PEOPLE,
WHICH IS THE FEBRUARY FUNDING DATE
GOES TO A COUNCIL
THAT'S RIGHT AT THE BEGINNING OF THE FISCAL YEAR,
I'M SORRY, THE FEBRUARY RECEIPT DATE GOES TO A COUNCIL
THAT'S RIGHT AT THE BEGINNING OF A NEW FISCAL YEAR,
AND OFTEN THAT CAN LEAD TO SOME SLIGHTS DELAYS.
AND SO THERE ARE LITTLE NUANCES, RIGHT,
THAT YOU HAVE TO AT LEAST BE AWARE OF OR PREPARED FOR.
TYPICALLY, IT'S GONNA BE NINE MONTHS AT THE LEAST
FROM THE TIME YOU SUBMIT
TO THE TIME YOU WOULD SEE AN AWARD.
BUT THERE ARE LITTLE KIND OF WEIRD THINGS
THAT CAN HAPPEN RELATED TO BUDGETS, ET CETERA, ET CETERA,
THAT MIGHT MAKE THAT GO A LITTLE LONGER.
SO GRANT MECHANISMS.
BACK TO UNDERSTANDING HOW NIH WORKS.
WE HEARD EARLIER,
THERE ARE A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT
WHAT WE CALL MECHANISMS.
IF IT'S A CAREER AWARD, WE CALL IT A K,
IF IT'S A CENTER AWARD, WE CALL IT P,
I DON'T KNOW WHY IT'S A P IF IT'S A CENTER.
BUT IF IT'S A R AWARD,
IT'S A RESEARCH AWARD, RIGHT?
SO, UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE A LOT OF DIFFERENT WAYS
THAT NIH PROVIDES GRANT FUNDING.
THERE ARE AWARDS THAT, YOU KNOW,
LIKE S'S,
DOES ANYONE KNOW WHAT A S IS?
I MEAN, SO TAKE THE TIME
TO LOOK AT THE GUIDE FOR GRANTS AND CONTRACTS,
FOR EXAMPLE, AND UNDERSTAND THAT,
OH, OKAY, THIS IS THIS TYPE OF MECHANISM,
AND THEN LOOK AT THE NOTICE OF FUNDING OPPORTUNITY
TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE PARTICULARS
ARE FOR THAT MECHANISM.
WE'VE HEARD ABOUT NOFOS AND NOSIS ALREADY TODAY.
JUST VERY BRIEFLY,
NOFO IS THE NOTICE OF FUNDING OPPORTUNITY.
WHENEVER A GRANT AWARD IS MADE,
IT'S GONNA BE MADE IN ASSOCIATION
WITH A NOTICE OF FUNDING OPPORTUNITY.
A NOSI DOES NOT HAVE MONEY ATTACHED,
BUT IT POINTS TO A NOTICE OF FUNDING OPPORTUNITY, RIGHT?
SO YOU'RE NOT APPLYING TO A NOSI,
YOU'RE APPLYING
TO A PARTICULAR NOTICE OF FUNDING OPPORTUNITY.
BUT YOU CAN INDICATE THE NOSI,
BECAUSE THE NOSI'S TELLING YOU
ABOUT A PARTICULAR AREA OF SCIENTIFIC INTEREST
THAT AN INSTITUTE HAS.
AND IF THERE ARE QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT,
PLEASE DO FEEL FREE TO BRING THOSE UP.
NEW INVESTIGATOR POLICIES.
A NEW INVESTIGATOR IS AN INVESTIGATOR
WHO HAS NEVER HAD A SUBSTANTIAL NIH AWARD.
SO THERE'S A WHOLE LIST OF AWARDS THAT YOU CAN HAVE
AND STILL BE CONSIDERED A NEW INVESTIGATOR,
LIKE A R21 OR A R34, SMALLER GRANTS.
AN ESI IS AN EARLY STAGE INVESTIGATOR,
AND THAT'S AN INDIVIDUAL WHO'S WITHIN 10 YEARS
OF THEIR TERMINAL DEGREE,
OR, YEAH, AND I THINK MY COLLEAGUE FROM CSR
WHO'S GONNA FOLLOW MAY TALK A LITTLE BIT MORE
ABOUT ESI POLICIES.
BUT WE'RE,
THE KEY HERE IS THAT THERE ARE BENEFITS IN REVIEW.
THERE ARE BENEFITS IN MAKING FUNDING DECISIONS
IF AN INDIVIDUAL IS A NEW INVESTIGATOR, OR ESI,
AND PARTICULARLY IF AN INDIVIDUAL IS A ESI.
YOU'VE HEARD ABOUT THE ERA COMMONS,
THAT'S THE TOOL THAT WE'RE ALL USING NATURALLY
TO GET OUR GRANTS SUBMITTED.
WE'VE ALSO HEARD ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF COLLABORATION
BETWEEN THE INVESTIGATOR
AND THE SPONSORED PROGRAM OFFICE.
THAT IS SO IMPORTANT
TO MAKE THAT CONNECTION AND HAVE THAT COLLABORATION.
AND SO, LET'S SEE.
SO, YOU'VE HEARD A LOT
ABOUT WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW,
THE BASICS YOU NEED TO UNDERSTAND BETTER.
WE BELIEVE THAT LEARNING THIS
CAN GIVE THE INVESTIGATORS CONFIDENCE
TO BE ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD.
AND IT'S INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT,
AS WE'VE ALREADY HEARD,
TO SEEK CONSULTATION AND MENTORSHIP
FROM OTHERS WHO HAVE BEEN SUCCESSFUL
IN RECEIVING NIH AWARDS.
AND A LOT OF TIMES,
I LOVE THAT I HEARD PEOPLE SAY THIS,
THAT A LOT OF TIMES YOU'D BE SURPRISED
HOW WILLING THOSE FOLKS ARE
WHO MAY NOT EVEN KNOW YOU,
YOU KNOW, IF YOU REACH OUT TO THEM
TO GIVE YOU SOME ADVICE ON YOUR NEXT STEPS.
SO, ANOTHER THING I WANNA MENTION IS
THERE ARE TWO SEPARATE MISSIONS FOR NIH.
THERE'S CAREER DEVELOPMENT AND RESEARCH TRAINING.
THERE'S ALSO RESEARCH.
SO KEEP IN MIND AS YOU'RE THINKING ABOUT VARIOUS
MECHANISMS
TO RECOMMEND TO FACULTY
THAT THEY CAN BE THINKING ABOUT EITHER OF THESE DIRECTIONS.
IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE ONLY RESEARCH.
SO NEXT, I WANT TO GO TO...
THANK YOU.
SO THE NEXT THING I WANTED TO MENTION IS FOR,
YOU KNOW, IF YOU'RE TALKING TO FACULTY,
HOW DO YOU TELL THEM
ABOUT MAKING THEIR APPLICATION COMPETITIVE?
PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE ASK THEM
TO REVIEW THE REVIEW CRITERIA.
SO IN SECTION V OF EVERY NOFO,
THEY WILL SEE REVIEW CRITERIA.
AND IT'S GONNA BE DIFFERENT
IF IT'S A FELLOWSHIP OR IF IT'S A RESEARCH GRANT.
IT COULD BE DIFFERENT IF IT'S A CAREER DEVELOPMENT AWARD.
BUT THE KEY IS THAT THESE ARE THE CRITERIA
THAT THE PEER REVIEWERS ARE USING
TO MAKE A DECISION ABOUT THE VALUE,
THE SCIENTIFIC MERIT OF THE APPLICATION.
AND SO PLEASE PAY ATTENTION TO THAT.
PLEASE PAY ATTENTION TO THE PREMISE
OR THE FOUNDATION OF WHY
THIS PARTICULAR SCIENTIFIC PROPOSAL IS BEING MADE.
YOU WANNA HAVE PRELIMINARY DATA,
AS WE'VE ALREADY HEARD,
PARTICULARLY FOR R01 AND LARGER MECHANISMS.
THERE ARE MECHANISMS
WHERE PRELIMINARY DATA ARE NOT REQUIRED,
SUCH AS R21S,
BUT KEEP IN MIND THAT IF YOU HAVE PRELIMINARY DATA,
EVEN IF THEY'RE NOT REQUIRED,
A LOT OF TIMES THEY'RE HELPFUL,
WITH FEW EXCEPTIONS.
THERE ARE MECHANISMS, SUCH AS THE KATZ R01,
WHERE PRELIMINARY DATA ARE NOT ALLOWED.
SO YOU HAVE TO, ONCE AGAIN,
READ, READ, READ THE INSTRUCTIONS
FOR EACH NOTICE VERY CAREFULLY.
YOU WANNA MAKE SURE THAT YOUR LITERATURE REVIEW IS THOROUGH
AND THAT THE WORK THAT YOU'RE PROPOSING IS WELL-GROUNDED
IN THE LITERATURE.
AND CRITICALLY YOU WANNA MAKE SURE
THAT THE IC PRIORITIES ALIGN
WITH YOUR PARTICULAR PROPOSAL.
SO WE TALKED ABOUT THE STRATEGIC PLAN,
THAT'S ONE WAY TO TAKE A LOOK AT IT,
BUT THE BIG THING TO DO IS REACH OUT
TO THE PROGRAM OFFICIAL.
SHARE A CONCEPT PAPER OR A SPECIFIC AIMS PAGE
AND ASK FOR THAT FEEDBACK,
IS THIS SOMETHING THAT YOUR INSTITUTE
IS ACTUALLY INTERESTED IN?
AND ALSO UNDERSTAND
THAT THERE'S OVERLAP OFTEN BETWEEN INSTITUTES,
SO WHAT'S OF INTEREST TO ONE INSTITUTE
MAY ALSO BE OF INTEREST TO ANOTHER,
AND SO FIGURE OUT WHERE THE BEST FIT IS.
YOU'VE HEARD ABOUT NIH REPORTER,
YOU'VE HEARD ABOUT MATCHMAKER.
LOTS OF REALLY VERY USEFUL INFORMATION
IN THE NIH REPORT ITSELF.
AND IN REPORTER,
YOU CAN LEARN WHAT NIH FUNDS.
NIH DOES NOT WANNA FUND WORK
THAT IT'S ALREADY PAYING SIGNIFICANT FUNDING TO DO,
SO YOU WANNA KNOW IF THERE'S SOMEONE ELSE FUNDED
TO DO YOUR WORK.
YOU WANNA POTENTIALLY IDENTIFY COLLABORATORS EVEN
BY LOOKING AT WHO'S BEEN FUNDED
TO DO SOMETHING EVEN TANGENTIALLY RELATED
IN NIH REPORTER.
YOU WANT TO UNDERSTAND WHICH INSTITUTES ARE INTERESTED
IN WHAT TYPE OF WORK.
ALL OF THAT CAN BE LEARNED THROUGH REPORTER.
AND FINALLY, INVESTIGATORS.
THINK ABOUT BUILDING YOUR DREAM TEAM
AS YOU THINK ABOUT PULLING TOGETHER YOUR GRANT APPLICATION.
A BIG PIECE OF WHAT WE ARE INTERESTED IN
IS KNOWING NOT THAT PEOPLE HAVE A REPUTATION,
BUT THAT PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT SKILLS
AND CAPABILITIES AND PREPARATION
TO FULFILL THE ROLES THAT YOU'VE IDENTIFIED.
AND KEEP IN MIND THAT IT TAKES A TEAM
TO EXECUTE RESEARCH,
THAT, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF TIMES FOR MOST OF US,
RESEARCH IS TEAM SCIENCE,
AND THAT YOU WANNA PUT TOGETHER
A VERY COMPLEMENTARY TEAM
IN ORDER TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT PROJECT GOES WELL.
AND I'M GONNA TURN THE MIC OVER TO DR. LASH
TO CONTINUE THE DISCUSSION.
I'LL STEP OFF. (ATTENDEES CLAPPING)
- THANK YOU, ARIA,
DR. CRUMP, FOR THAT PRESENTATION.
SO I'M GONNA TALK ABOUT PREPARING
TO SUBMIT YOUR APPLICATION TO NIH.
SO I'VE BEEN A PROGRAM OFFICER FOR OVER 16 YEARS NOW,
AND IT ACTUALLY IS ONE OF MY GREATEST,
YOU KNOW, THINGS THAT I ENJOY DOING
BECAUSE IT GIVES ME THE OPPORTUNITY
TO TALK DIRECTLY WITH THE PIS
AND LEARN WHAT'S HAPPENING WITHIN THE FIELD.
SO FIRST,
WE HAVE PUBLISH, PRESENT, AND PROMOTE YOUR IDEAS.
AND I ALSO GROUP THAT WITH COLLEAGUE,
YOU KNOW, EXPANDING YOUR COLLEAGUE NETWORK.
IT'S VERY IMPORTANT TO BUILD YOUR ACADEMIC IDENTITY.
YOU SHOULD BE INVOLVED IN COMMITTEES,
IN DIFFERENT CONFERENCES,
YOU KNOW, SHARING YOUR INFORMATION.
YOU DON'T WANNA SHARE ANYTHING THAT'S PROPRIETARY,
BUT AT LEAST, YOU KNOW,
SHARE THE IDEA THAT YOU HAVE WITH OTHERS
BECAUSE SOME MAY HAVE SIMILAR IDEAS.
I ALSO HAVE SEEK PROGRAM OFFICER, PO, ADVICE.
I DON'T KNOW WHY,
BUT SOMETIMES PEOPLE ARE INTIMIDATED
BY PROGRAM OFFICERS
OR DON'T WANNA TALK TO THE PROGRAM OFFICER.
BUT IN ACTUALITY,
OUR GOAL IS FOR THE PI TO GET A GRANT.
WE WANT THEM TO RECEIVE FUNDING FOR THEIR RESEARCH.
AS A PROGRAM OFFICER,
WE'RE CHARGED WITH BUILDING A PORTFOLIO,
SO WE CERTAINLY WANT THE BEST RESEARCH WITHIN OUR PORTFOLIO.
WITH THE PROGRAM OFFICER,
WE ALSO HAVE, YOU KNOW,
WE'RE INVOLVED WITH WHAT'S HAPPENING EVEN OUTSIDE OF NIH.
SO WE KINDA KNOW WHAT'S HAPPENING IN THE FIELD.
SO WHEN THE PI TALKS TO THE PROGRAM OFFICER,
QUESTIONS CAN GO, YOU KNOW,
SIMILAR TO, WELL, HAVE YOU SEEN THIS BEFORE?
HAVE YOU SEEN THIS TYPE OF RESEARCH?
ANYTHING THAT'S PUBLIC,
WE CERTAINLY CAN SHARE,
"NO, I HAVEN'T SEEN THAT,"
"I'VE SEEN SOMETHING SIMILAR,"
THAT GIVES YOU AN IDEA AS YOU'RE MOVING FORWARD
WITH SUBMITTING YOUR APPLICATION
IF THIS IS SOMETHING THAT PEOPLE HAVE DONE BEFORE OR NOT.
WE ALSO UTILIZE NIH PROGRAMS AND RESOURCES.
YOU PROBABLY HAVE HEARD SEVERAL
OF THE DIFFERENT RESOURCES WE HAVE HERE,
BUT I DO WANNA HAMMER THIS CONCEPT,
YOU WANT TO BE IN THE KNOW.
AND IT'S GOOD FOR THE PIS
AND PROBABLY YOU ALL AS WELL
JUST TO KINDA KNOW WHAT'S HAPPENING AT NIH.
THERE'S SOME WAYS, SOME SIMPLE WAYS.
THERE IS THE NIH EXTRAMURAL NEXUS,
WHICH IS, IT GIVES YOU THE UPDATES ABOUT THE NIH GRANTS,
THE POLICIES,
AND THE ACTIVITIES THAT IMPACT THE ENTIRE GRANTS COMMUNITY.
NOT JUST, YOU KNOW, THE SCIENTIFIC REALM
BUT ALSO THE GRANTS MANAGEMENT
AND THINGS LIKE THAT AS WELL.
THAT IS WHERE YOU HEARD DR. LAUER TALK THIS MORNING,
WHERE "OPEN MIKE" IS,
THAT'S A REALLY GOOD BLOG WHERE HE SHARES,
YOU KNOW, DIFFERENT THINGS THAT ARE HAPPENING
WITHIN THE NIH AS A WHOLE.
THERE'S ALSO, YOU PROBABLY HEARD,
THE NIH GUIDE TO GRANTS AND CONTRACTS.
I MEAN, THAT'S KINDA LIKE OUR HOLY GRAIL,
WHERE THERE IS ALL THE INFORMATION
ABOUT THE GRANTS AND CONTRACTS.
THAT'S WHERE YOU HAVE YOUR NOFOS, YOUR NOSIS,
YOU CAN FIND THAT.
ALL OF THE DIFFERENT INSTITUTES HAVE TO PUBLISH
WITH THE GUIDE WITH THE GRANTS AND CONTRACTS.
WE ALSO HAVE A PODCAST,
WHICH IS REALLY INTERESTING AND SOMETHING THAT,
YOU KNOW, THAT YOU CAN JUST SIMPLY LISTEN TO,
WHERE IT HAS NIH STAFF MEMBERS
WHO TALK ABOUT THE INS AND OUTS ABOUT NIH FUNDING.
AND IT IS DESIGNED FOR INVESTIGATORS AND FELLOWS,
STUDENTS, RESEARCH ADMINISTRATORS
WHO ARE JUST CURIOUS ABOUT CERTAIN TOPICS AND APPLICATIONS
AND EVEN AWARD PROCESS.
I THINK ONE OF OUR KEY TOOLS THAT WE HAVE
THAT IS REALLY HELPFUL TO INVESTIGATORS
IS THAT CSR EARLY CAREER REVIEWER PROGRAM.
THAT PROGRAM IS VERY HELPFUL
BECAUSE THE PI CAN WORK SIDE BY SIDE
WITH SOME OF THE ACCOMPLISHED RESEARCHERS
THAT ARE IN THE FIELD
AND HELP IDENTIFY THOSE PROMISING GRANT APPLICATIONS.
SO YOU'RE WORKING, YOU KNOW,
YOU HAVE A KINDA INSIDE VIEW
OF WHAT'S HAPPENING WITH NIH.
AND THEN IT ALSO SHOWS, YOU KNOW,
KIND OF THE CULTURE OF THE NIH REVIEW PROCESS
BECAUSE YOU'RE ACTUALLY IN IT AS A CAREER REVIEWER.
I DON'T HAVE IT UP HERE,
BUT MY FAVORITE STILL IS THE NIH REPORTER.
WITH REPORTER, YOU CERTAINLY,
ANYTIME I GET AN INVESTIGATOR ASKING ME,
YOU KNOW, SIMPLY ABOUT THEIR AREA OF RESEARCH,
THE NIH REPORTER IS THE ONE THAT I DIRECTLY SEND THEM TO
BECAUSE IT SHOWS YOU WHAT A GRANT WOULD LOOK LIKE
SIMILAR TO YOUR AREA OF RESEARCH,
IT TELLS YOU HOW MUCH WAS FUNDED,
WHAT INSTITUTES FUNDED THIS PARTICULAR AREA OF RESEARCH.
I MEAN, IT'S PUBLIC,
YOU KNOW, AND YOU CAN SEE THAT INFORMATION
JUST BY PLUGGING IN A FEW KEYWORDS
TO SEE WHO'S BEEN FUNDED.
I'VE EVEN HAD PIS
WHO ACTUALLY CONTACT ANOTHER FUNDED INVESTIGATOR
TO LEARN MORE ABOUT, YOU KNOW,
WHAT WAS YOUR PROCESS, YOU KNOW.
AND THEY SHARE, YOU KNOW,
SO YOU WOULD BE VERY SURPRISED
ON HOW IMPORTANT IT IS
TO KINDA KNOW YOUR FIELD
AND WHAT'S BEEN FUNDED IN THAT FIELD AND WHAT'S NOT.
OKAY.
THANK YOU.
TO THE NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
SO THE THING IS,
SOMETIMES WE GET A GRANT,
AND SOMETIMES WE DON'T.
IF YOU DON'T GET THE FIRST TIME,
YOU KNOW, GET FUNDED THE FIRST TIME
THAT YOU SUBMIT A APPLICATION,
THE BIGGEST THING IS TO GO AHEAD AND RESUBMIT.
YOU KNOW, IT IS VERY IMPORTANT
BECAUSE THE PI HAS GONE THROUGH
ALL OF THE, YOU KNOW, RIGAMAROLE
OF GETTING THAT PARTICULAR APPLICATION OUT THE DOOR,
AND YOU RECEIVE A SCORE AND A SUMMARY STATEMENT.
SO WE HIGHLY RECOMMEND TO DISCUSS YOUR SUMMARY STATEMENT
WITH YOUR PROGRAM OFFICER OR DIRECTOR.
WE AS PROGRAM OFFICERS,
WE ACTUALLY MOST OF THE TIME MAY BE IN THAT REVIEW,
SO WE KINDA HEAR WHAT THE DISCUSSION SAID,
YOU CAN KIND OF SEE,
YOU SEE IT IN BLACK AND WHITE IN THE SUMMARY STATEMENT,
BUT WE WERE ACTUALLY THERE.
YOU KNOW, SO IF THERE'S ANY CONCERNS
OR, YOU KNOW, SOME CLARITY THAT MAY BE NEEDED
KIND OF FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE,
WHAT WE HEARD,
WE CAN SHARE THAT INFORMATION WITH THE PI
AND THEN KINDA INFORMATION THAT MAY BE HELPFUL
AND KINDA RECAPPING OF WHAT HAPPENED.
THE RESUBMISSION IS FOR THOSE UNFUNDED APPLICATIONS,
AND IT CAN BE MODIFIED IN DIFFERENT WAYS.
AS A PROGRAM OFFICER,
THE FIRST THING THAT I ANSWER
WHEN I GET A CALL FROM A PI WHO SAYS, YOU KNOW,
"I'VE GOTTEN THIS SCORE,
DO YOU THINK IT CAN BE FUNDED?"
OR, "I DON'T THINK IT'LL BE FUNDED,
BUT I'D LIKE TO RESUBMIT."
SO THE FIRST THING THAT I ASK IS,
"DID YOU READ THE SUMMARY STATEMENT?"
SO IF THEY READ THE SUMMARY STATEMENT,
MY NEXT QUESTION IS,
"OKAY, SO IF YOU'VE READ THE SUMMARY STATEMENT,
IS THERE ANYTHING IN THAT SUMMARY STATEMENT
THAT YOU CANNOT CHANGE
OR YOU CANNOT MAKE A MODIFICATION TO?"
BECAUSE THEN THAT'S WHEN WE HAVE,
YOU KNOW, SOME CONCERNS
BECAUSE YOU HAVE PUT THE INFORMATION IN
AND YOU DO NOT HAVE A DIRECTION IN WHICH TO GO
BECAUSE YOU FEEL THAT YOU CANNOT MAKE A CHANGE.
WE WANT YOU IN THE RESUBMISSION,
OR THE PI IN THE RESUBMISSION
TO CAPITALIZE ON THOSE STRENGTHS.
YOU KNOW, THROW OUT THOSE REVISED PARTS
THAT THE REVIEWERS FELT WERE WEAK,
AND THEN CHECK AGAIN
THAT THE SPECIFIC AIMS FROM THE APPLICATION,
THEY ACTUALLY LINE UP WITH THE HYPOTHESIS.
ONE THING WE ASK WITH THE PIS WHO ARE RESUBMITTING,
JUST RESPOND POINT BY POINT.
A LOT OF TIMES,
I GET QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS WHERE,
YOU KNOW, "I DON'T UNDERSTAND
WHAT THEY WERE SAYING HERE WITH THE REVIEWERS,"
YOU KNOW,
BUT IT'LL BE SOMETHING SO SMALL
THAT JUST RESPOND POINT BY POINT.
EVEN IF YOU AGREE OR DO NOT AGREE WITH IT,
EVEN IF YOU DON'T AGREE WITH IT,
STILL STATE THE CASE
AND WHY YOU DON'T AGREE
WITH WHATEVER THE REVIEW TEAM PUT.
IN THE INTRODUCTION,
WE WANT THE INTRODUCTION TO BE,
IT HAS A ONE-PAGE LIMIT,
BUT WE WANT THOSE ISSUES AND CRITICISMS
TO BE SUMMARIZED IN A SUCCINCT WAY IN THE INTRODUCTION.
WE ALSO WOULD LIKE TO SEE IN THOSE RESUBMISSIONS
ANY NEW FINDINGS.
IF YOU'VE SEEN SOMETHING
SINCE THE LAST TIME IT WAS REVIEWED,
YOU AREN'T LIMITED TO REVISING ONLY THOSE ITEMS MENTIONED
IN THE SUMMARY STATEMENT.
THIS IS THE PI'S CHANCE
TO REALLY SHARE THE INFORMATION THAT THEY KNOW
TO GET THIS PROJECT FUNDED.
I'M GONNA GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE.
SO IN THE GREAT CASE OF WHAT WE WANNA SEE HAPPEN
AFTER THE INVESTIGATOR RECEIVES THEIR FIRST NIH AWARD,
NOW'S THE TIME TO ESTABLISH THAT PROGRAM OF RESEARCH.
YES, YOU'VE GOTTEN THIS ONE GRANT,
BUT THAT IS ONE GRANT.
YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE TO HAVE YOUR PROGRAM OF RESEARCH,
THINKING ABOUT,
THE PI THINKING ABOUT WHAT'S NEXT.
AND THIS IS ALSO A GOOD TIME
TO TALK WITH THE PROGRAM OFFICERS TOO.
YES, YOU HAVE A NIH GRANT,
BUT THE PROGRAM OFFICERS,
WE TALK WITH OUR SISTER AGENCIES,
FDA, USDA,
YOU KNOW, OUR SISTER AGENCIES
ABOUT OTHER FUNDING THAT THEY HAVE.
EVEN, YOU KNOW, THE GATES FOUNDATION,
WE'RE REALLY IN THE KNOW ABOUT WHAT'S HAPPENING
IN THAT BODY OF FIELD.
YOU WANT TO BE ABLE TO DISSEMINATE,
OR THE PIS TO DISSEMINATE THE RESULTS.
SHARE THE INFORMATION.
YOU'VE NOW GOTTEN THIS GRANT,
SHARE IT WIDELY.
WE DO HAVE THE NIH PUBLIC ACCESS POLICY,
IT'S ACTUALLY MANDATED,
WHERE WE MAKE A PEER,
EXCUSE ME, WE ASK THAT ALL OF THE INFORMATION THAT'S PUBLIC
TO BE PUBLISHED IN A PEER-REVIEWED ARTICLE.
AND THAT IS MADE PUBLICLY IN PUBMED CENTRAL.
WE ALSO SUGGEST MAINTAINING THOSE COLLABORATIONS
AND BUILDING NEW ONES.
ONE OF THE BIGGEST THINGS,
I'M IN THE BIOENGINEERING FIELD,
AND SO IT'S IMPORTANT,
ONE OF MY MANTRAS ARE
THAT A CLINICAL NEED NEEDS TO DRIVE THE TECHNOLOGY.
YOU CAN'T JUST MAKE UP SOMETHING,
AND PEOPLE WILL COME.
YOU HAVE TO HAVE, YOU KNOW,
SOME TYPE OF CLINICAL NEED THAT WOULD DRIVE THAT TECHNOLOGY.
SO IT'S IMPORTANT FOR THE CLINICIANS,
FOR THOSE IN ENGINEERING TO TALK TO EACH OTHER.
THAT CAN ALSO FORMULATE NEW IDEAS
AND CONTRIBUTE TO THE PROGRAM OF RESEARCH.
AND THAT'S ALSO PART OF GROWING AND DEVELOPING THE SCIENCE.
ONE REALLY IMPORTANT AREA IS LEADING AND MENTORING.
THAT PI, YOU KNOW,
HAS RECEIVED THE AWARD AT THIS POINT.
AND WHAT WE WANT THEM TO DO
IS TO SHARE THEIR KNOWLEDGE WITH OTHERS.
I MENTIONED THE REPORTER,
WHERE YOU CAN FIND OUT INFORMATION
FROM OTHER INVESTIGATORS.
SO ACTUALLY, YOU KNOW,
THAT PERSON WOULD BE SERVING
IN THAT CAPACITY OF SHARING THE INFORMATION
THAT THEY HAVE AS WELL.
SO WE ASK FOR LEADERSHIP AND MENTORSHIP.
SO DR. CRUMP AND I,
WE'RE GONNA BE OPEN TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS
YOU MAY HAVE FROM OUR GUESTS HERE.
ANYTHING THAT PROGRAM STAFF CAN CERTAINLY ANSWER
FOR YOUR QUESTIONS.
- [DORIT] SO YOU HAVE SOME REAL-LIFE PROGRAM OFFICERS
IN THE ROOM,
AND EVERYBODY'S BEEN SAYING ALL DAY,
TALK TO THEM,
SO HERE'S THE OPPORTUNITY.
- HI, SO MELISSA HARRINGTON,
DELAWARE STATE UNIVERSITY.
CAN YOU SAY A LITTLE BIT ABOUT CO-FUNDING?
PARTLY FOR THE IDEA PROGRAM,
BUT WE HAD A CASE WHERE AN INVESTIGATOR,
HER GRANTS BEING REVIEWED WITH MULTIPLE INSTITUTES,
AND THEN WE'VE BEEN TOLD
THERE MIGHT BE A POSSIBILITY OF CO-FUNDING,
BUT WE DON'T HAVE ANY DETAILS FOR HOW IT WORKS.
- SURE, THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION.
SO WHENEVER YOU SUBMIT A GRANT,
THERE'S ALWAYS A PRIMARY ASSIGNMENT,
BUT THERE CAN BE SECONDARY ASSIGNMENTS
TO OTHER INSTITUTES IF THERE'S COMMON INTEREST.
SO, AND IN SOME CASES,
IN SOMEWHAT UNUSUAL CASES,
THERE ARE MULTIPLE INSTITUTES ASSIGNED
ACROSS A PARTICULAR FOA,
BECAUSE THE DECISION
ABOUT WHO THE LEAD INSTITUTE IS GONNA BE
FOR EACH APPLICATION HAS NOT YET BEEN MADE.
BUT IN TERMS OF CO-FUNDING,
MOST GRANTS ARE FUNDED BY A SINGLE INSTITUTE.
BUT THERE ARE CASES WHERE THERE MAY BE COLLABORATION
AMONG THE PROGRAM STAFF
AND THERE'S A COMMON INTEREST,
AND THEY MAKE ARRANGEMENTS
SO THAT A SECOND INSTITUTE TRANSFERS MONEY
TO THE ADMINISTERING INSTITUTE
SO THAT MULTIPLE INSTITUTES ARE FUNDING THAT APPLICATION.
MOST OF THAT SHOULD BE SOMEWHAT INVISIBLE TO YOU,
EXCEPT IN UNUSUAL CASES.
IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT IT,
I WOULD ABSOLUTELY REACH OUT
TO THE MAIN PROGRAM OFFICIAL
WHO'S GONNA BE IN ERA COMMONS
FOR THE ADMINISTERING INSTITUTE AND ASK ABOUT IT.
- [DORIT] CAN I JUST ADD TO THAT A SEC?
- SURE. - BECAUSE THERE'S
ONE SPECIAL CASE OF THIS,
WHICH IS THE IDEA CO-FUNDING PROGRAM,
WHICH, THOSE OF YOU HAVE WHO COME FROM IDEA STATES,
ONE OF THE IDEA PROGRAMS IS CO-FUNDING RESEARCH GRANTS
THAT CAME IN THROUGH THE R01 MECHANISM,
THE R15 MECHANISM,
AND THAT IS SOMETHING THAT YOU CAN ACTUALLY SEE
ON THE IDEA WEBSITE HOW IT WORKS.
- I WAS ALSO GONNA SAY THAT'S A TIME
WHEN YOU SPEAK TO YOUR PROGRAM OFFICERS
BEFORE YOU SUBMIT THE APPLICATION,
BECAUSE AS A PROGRAM OFFICER,
WE CAN RECOMMEND, YOU KNOW,
YOU MAY NEED TO, FOR INSTANCE,
FOR NIBIB, WHERE I AM,
WE ARE ENGINEERING INSTITUTE,
SO WE'RE DISEASE-AGNOSTIC.
BUT THERE MAY BE A APPLICATION
THAT YOUR PI WOULD LIKE TO SUPPORT
THAT ANOTHER INSTITUTE WOULD BE ABLE
TO HAVE INTEREST IN AS WELL.
SO HAVING A PRIMARY
AND A SECONDARY INSTITUTE IS ALWAYS,
IN MY OPINION, ALWAYS RECOMMENDED
BECAUSE YOU DON'T KNOW, YOU KNOW,
WHO WOULD HAVE THAT INTEREST AND BE ABLE TO SUPPORT.
- [DORIT] JUST USE IT.
- [QUINCY] OKAY.
SO A REALLY- - YEAH, SORRY.
- YEAH, OKAY, SO A REALLY QUICK QUESTION.
JUST REACHING OUT TO THE PROGRAM OFFICER'S BECOME
SORT OF A THEME HERE,
AND I AGREE WITH THAT.
I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS
THAT I WOULD MAYBE WANT YOU TO ADDRESS,
AND YOU CAN'T SPEAK FOR ALL PROGRAM OFFICERS,
I DO UNDERSTAND THAT,
BUT WHAT HAPPENS A LOT OF TIMES
IS THE INVESTIGATORS WILL REACH OUT TO THE PROGRAM OFFICER,
THE PROGRAM OFFICERS JUST RECITE THE SUMMARY STATEMENT
THAT THEY'VE GOTTEN FROM THE VIEWERS.
I MEAN, AND THERE'S JUST THAT MUCH GAINED
FROM AN INVESTIGATOR'S STANDPOINT FROM THAT.
SO I'M NOT SURE,
YOU KNOW, BECAUSE,
AND I THINK THE PROFESSOR FROM GEORGETOWN
WAS SAYING THE SAME THING,
THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO KEEP FROM PEOPLE BEING DISCOURAGED.
SO YOU HAVE A SUMMARY STATEMENT HERE
YOU'RE TRYING TO RESPOND TO,
YOU'RE DISCOURAGED BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T LIKE YOUR PROPOSAL.
THEN YOU REACH OUT TO THE PROGRAM OFFICER,
THEY'RE RECITING WHAT'S IN THE SUMMARY STATEMENT.
THERE'S A LOT OF STUFF TO TRY TO OVERCOME,
YOU KNOW, PSYCHOLOGICALLY.
SO CAN YOU SPEAK TO THAT?
AND AGAIN, PLEASE,
I KNOW YOU CANNOT SPEAK FOR ALL PROGRAM OFFICERS.
- YEAH, NO, NO, I THINK IT'S A FAIR,
I THINK IT'S A VERY FAIR QUESTION.
THERE WAS A OPEN MIC PUBLISHED A COUPLE YEARS BACK
WHICH TALKED ABOUT WHAT A PO CAN DO FOR YOU.
AND THE TRUTH IS THAT PROGRAM FOLKS ARE LIMITED
IN TERMS OF WHAT THEIR ROLE IS.
SOME PROGRAM OFFICIALS MAY TAKE THIS VERY,
VERY, VERY STRICTLY TO MEAN THAT,
OH, LET ME JUST TELL YOU
WHAT THIS SUMMARY STATEMENT SAID.
MOST PROGRAM OFFICIALS
THAT I AM AWARE OF WILL DO MORE THAN THAT.
AND SO WHAT I THINK AS AN APPLICANT YOU SHOULD BE ASKING
IS,
YOU KNOW, YOU CAN ASK, "WERE YOU PRESENT?"
IF YOU WERE PRESENT.
DO YOU HAVE,
IF YOU AS AN APPLICANT HAVE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS
ABOUT SOMETHING THAT'S THERE,
YOU CAN KIND OF CHECK YOUR UNDERSTANDING
OF SOMETHING IN THE SUMMARY STATEMENT,
IF THAT'S A QUESTION THAT YOU HAVE.
YOU CAN SAY,
YOU KNOW, "CAN YOU TELL ME HOW THE PROCESS WORKS
FOR YOUR INSTITUTE?"
YOU KNOW, "I HAVE A PRIORITY SCORE HERE,
WHAT DOES THAT MEAN IN YOUR INSTITUTE?"
I MEAN, YOU CAN ASK DIRECTED QUESTIONS,
AND IF A PO IS NOT ABLE TO ANSWER,
THEY CAN TELL YOU THAT.
SO YOU SHOULD FEEL COMFORTABLE
TO ASK WHATEVER QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE.
AND I WOULD COME TO THAT MEETING PREPARED,
YOU KNOW, WITH QUESTIONS LIKE,
YOU KNOW, DID YOU GET THE SENSE
THAT THERE ARE FATAL FLAWS,
FOR EXAMPLE.
YOU KNOW, "WAS THAT THE SENSE,
THAT THIS IS A SITUATION
WHERE IT'S NOT A GOOD IDEA TO RESUBMIT
BUT INSTEAD TO MAKE A MAJOR REVISION?"
I MEAN, THAT'S A FAIR QUESTION TO ASK.
SO I HOPE THAT'S HELPFUL.
- AND IN PRACTICAL TERMS, YOU KNOW,
I RECEIVE QUESTIONS LIKE,
IS THIS, YOU KNOW, THIS PARTICULAR STATEMENT
THAT WAS IN THE SUMMARY STATEMENT,
IS THIS, YOU KNOW,
WHAT SHIFTED, YOU KNOW, THE ACTUAL SCORE?
WE CAN SHARE THINGS LIKE,
"THAT DID NOT APPEAR TO BE THE DEAL BREAKER."
SO YOU CAN IMAGINE,
IN THE PI'S, IN THEIR HEAD,
THAT THIS, YOU KNOW,
I HAVE TO CHANGE ALL OF THIS BECAUSE OF THIS ONE STATEMENT.
AS A PROGRAM OFFICER, WE CAN SAY,
"THAT WASN'T, YOU KNOW,
THAT WAS NOT MY INTERPRETATION,
IT DID NOT SEEM THAT THAT WAS THE DEAL BREAKER
IN MOVING THAT SCORE THAT HARD," SO.
- YEAH, AND I WILL JUST ADD THAT WE CAN'T BE IN THERE,
IN THE HEADS OF THE FOLKS
MAKING THE DECISIONS. - RIGHT, MM-HMM.
- SO, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF TIMES,
WE'RE JUST GIVING YOU ADDITIONAL INFORMATION,
BUT I KNOW I'M ALWAYS VERY GUARDED
AND BEING VERY CLEAR THAT THE FINAL DECISION IS YOURS.
I STRONGLY RECOMMEND
THAT YOU DON'T TAKE THE PROGRAM OFFICIAL AS SOMEONE
WHERE YOU'RE JUST FOLLOWING EVERYTHING THEY TELL YOU TO DO.
YOU KNOW, REALLY WE'RE HERE TO ADVISE,
YOU KNOW, NOT TO DIRECT.
SO, AGAIN, I HOPE THAT'S HELPFUL.
- CAN YOU SPEAK TO THE STUDY SECTIONS THAT CSR HAS,
THE STANDING STUDY SECTIONS, THE AD HOC,
AND IF AS APPLICANTS,
HOW MUCH CAN WE SUGGEST, REQUEST,
AND WHAT ROLE STUDY SECTIONS MAY PLAY?
- YEAH, I WAS JUST GONNA SAY, (TIFFANI CHUCKLES)
CSR IS COMING UP TO SPEAK.
WE COULD JUST VERY BRIEFLY SAY
THAT YOU GO TO THE CSR WEBSITE,
YOU CAN SEE A LIST.
AND THERE'S A FORM THAT IS A PART OF THE APPLICATION FORM
WHERE YOU CAN REQUEST A SPECIFIC STUDY SECTION.
AND I'LL ALSO MENTION THAT I THINK IT'S ALSO FAIR GAME,
YOU MAY OR MAY NOT GET AN ANSWER,
BUT IT'S FAIR GAME TO ASK A PO,
"IS THERE A PARTICULAR STUDY SECTION
THAT YOU WOULD RECOMMEND, YOU KNOW,
GIVEN THIS PARTICULAR CONCEPT
FOR THE APPLICATION I'M PREPARING?"
THINK THAT'S ALSO SOMETHING THAT YOU CAN DO.
- AND FROM THE PROGRAM OFFICER'S PERSPECTIVE,
YOU KNOW, I CAN SHARE, WITHIN THIS PORTFOLIO,
A LOT OF MY APPLICATIONS GO
TO THIS PARTICULAR STUDY SECTION.
I'M NOT RECOMMENDING,
BUT I'M JUST SHARING THAT WITHIN THIS PORTFOLIO,
THESE APPLICATIONS,
MAJORITY OF THEM GO TO THIS PARTICULAR STUDY SECTION.
- AND ONE THING I WANNA ADD ALSO IS,
AS A PO,
ONE THING THAT I OFTEN WOULD DO
IS IF I CAN TELL YOUR APPLICATION IS HIGHLY LIKELY
TO GO TO A PARTICULAR STUDY SECTION,
I WOULD RECOMMEND,
GO LOOK AT THE ROSTER,
UNDERSTAND WHO YOUR AUDIENCE IS.
YOU KNOW, IF IT DOES END UP
IN THIS PARTICULAR STUDY SECTION,
THESE ARE THE PEOPLE YOU'RE SPEAKING TO.
THEY'RE NOT ALL EXPERTS IN YOUR EXACT FIELD NECESSARILY,
AND SO THAT HELPS YOU THINK ABOUT,
YOU KNOW, WHAT LEVEL OF DETAIL
AND WHAT LEVEL OF CLARITY
THAT YOU NEED TO WRITE WITH.
- [DORIT] ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS? MELISSA?
- SO, I WANNA MAKE AN OBSERVATION,
AND YOU GUYS WILL PROBABLY REINFORCE THAT.
WHEN I'M TALKING TO PEOPLE THAT ARE NEW TO NIH
AND EXPLAINING THE PROCESS TO NEW INVESTIGATORS,
ONE THING THAT PEOPLE ARE INCREDULOUS ABOUT
AND JUST HAVE A HARD TIME UNDERSTANDING IS,
AND I TELL THEM,
WHEN YOU WRITE YOUR PROPOSAL,
THERE'S AN AUDIENCE OF THREE.
THE THREE PEOPLE WHO ARE REVIEWING IT.
BUT THERE COULD BE 30 PEOPLE IN THE ROOM
WHO ARE GOING TO GIVE IT A SCORE.
AND SO THE PEOPLE WHO READ YOUR GRANT,
THEIR SCORES HAVE VERY LITTLE IMPACT ON YOUR OVERALL SCORE.
WHAT THEY SAY ABOUT YOUR PROPOSAL IS WHAT'S GONNA HAVE,
NUMERICALLY, RIGHT,
I CAN SEE YOU SAY, NUMERICALLY,
WHEN YOU AVERAGE IT ALL TOGETHER, RIGHT?
THERE ONLY COULD BE 3 OUTTA 30, RIGHT,
THAT ARE GIVING SCORES.
IT'S WHAT YOU SAY,
WHAT THEY SAY ABOUT YOUR PROPOSAL
IS WHAT'S GONNA DETERMINE THE SCORES FOR EVERYONE ELSE.
SO I THINK THAT GETS A LITTLE GLOSSED OVER
WHEN PEOPLE TALK ABOUT HOW WE DO WORKS AT NIH.
- CAN I JUST SAY THAT I DON'T THINK,
I PERSONALLY DON'T THINK THAT'S EXACTLY THE WAY IT WORKS,
MEANING, IN MOST CASES,
AND I'VE LISTENED TO A WHOLE LOT OF STUDY SECTIONS,
A WHOLE LOT.
IN MOST CASES,
ONCE THOSE THREE PEOPLE FINISH TALKING,
THEY GIVE, YOU KNOW, THEIR FINAL SCORES,
AND THAT SETS A RANGE.
AND THOSE OTHER PEOPLE
WHO ARE NOT THE MAIN PEOPLE
ALMOST ALWAYS ARE VOTING WITHIN THAT RANGE.
AND SO THERE ARE CASES WHERE FOLKS WILL SAY,
"NO, I'M OUTSIDE THE RANGE,"
"NO, I'M OUT."
THERE ARE CASES LIKE THAT,
BUT THAT'S NOT TYPICAL.
THAT'S NOT TYPICAL, SO-
- [MELISSA] WELL, BUT IF THE RANGE IS TWO TO SIX
OR TWO TO FIVE.
- BUT I'LL TELL YOU, (MELISSA CHUCKLES)
I'VE LISTENED TO A LOT OF STUDY SECTIONS,
AND THE TWO TO SIX ONES,
THOSE ARE SOME EXCITING DISCUSSIONS,
BUT THAT'S NOT THE NORM, IN MY EXPERIENCE.
IN MY EXPERIENCE,
I'M OFTEN AMAZED AT HOW,
YOU KNOW, TYPICALLY IT'S MORE LIKE TWO TO FOUR,
THREE TO SIX.
IT'S MORE LIKE, YOU KNOW,
MAYBE THERE'S A TWO TO SEVEN EVERY ONCE IN A BLUE MOON.
REVIEWERS TEND TO AGREE.
I THINK IT'S ACTUALLY,
WOULD YOU AGREE WITH ME?
- MOST OF THE TIME.
BUT THERE IS A CULTURE OF DIFFERENT STUDY SECTIONS.
- THAT'S TRUE, SO THAT IS VERY TRUE
THAT DIFFERENT STUDY SECTIONS OPERATE DIFFERENTLY.
IN MY EXPERIENCE,
AND I'VE LISTENED TO A LOT OF THEM,
MOST OF THE TIME,
REVIEWERS ARE ON THE SAME PAGE,
AT LEAST WHEN THEY'RE DISCUSSED.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S HAPPENING WHEN THEY'RE NOT DISCUSSED.
BUT WHEN THEY'RE DISCUSSED,
THEY'RE OFTEN ON THE SAME PAGE.
- SO, AS PROGRAM OFFICERS,
I'M SURE YOU RECEIVE A LOT OF SPECIFIC AIMS PAGE
AND INTEREST FROM A LOT OF INSTITUTIONS.
WHAT IS THE RATIO, IF YOU HAVE TO,
BETWEEN THE RESEARCH-INTENSIVE INSTITUTIONS
AND THE LOW-RESOURCE INSTITUTIONS,
HOW MANY INQUIRIES AND AIMS PAGES YOU RECEIVE
FROM THE LOW-RESOURCE INSTITUTIONS,
I MEAN, SUCH AS WE HAVE IN THIS ROOM?
A.
AND B, CAN YOU POINT OUT ANY MAJOR DIFFERENCES
BETWEEN THE INQUIRIES,
THE KIND OF INQUIRIES,
AND SOMETHING THAT WE CAN USE, YOU KNOW,
TO STAND ON IT?
- THAT QUESTION STRUCK A CHORD WITH ME.
I'VE BEEN AT NIH FOR 22 YEARS,
AND IT IS RARE,
EXCEPT, AND I'LL ARGUE IT'S CHANGING,
BUT IT HAS BEEN RARE OVER THE 22 YEARS
TO GET A LARGE NUMBER OF CONCEPTS
FROM LOW RESOURCE.
IT'S LIKE THE HIGHER-RESOURCE INSTITUTIONS MENTOR
THEIR PEOPLE TO CONTACT PROGRAM.
THAT'S WHAT I BELIEVE IS THE CASE.
I CAN'T,
I DON'T HAVE ANY DATA,
BUT THAT'S WHAT I BELIEVE IS THE CASE,
'CAUSE I DON'T,
I HAVE NOT OVER THE YEARS GOTTEN MANY CONCEPTS EXCEPT,
AND HONESTLY, I THINK SINCE UNITE,
IT'S CHANGED SOME. - MM-HMM.
- BUT BEFORE UNITE,
I DON'T THINK WE REALLY GOT A WHOLE LOT.
- I AGREE WITH DR. CRUMP, SAME HERE.
IT JUST, YOU KNOW,
IT IS SOMETHING THAT'S IMPORTANT.
TO GET A VIEW OF WHAT THE SPECIFIC AIMS
THAT WOULD BE COMING THROUGH THE DOOR
IS SOMETHING THAT ANYONE CAN DO.
YOU KNOW, YOU CAN SEND IT TO YOUR PROGRAM OFFICERS,
BUT I THINK THAT'S KIND OF THE PURPOSE
OF THIS WORKSHOP HERE,
IS TO GET THAT INFORMATION BACK OUT TO THE PIS
TO REACH OUT TO THE PROGRAM OFFICERS,
SEND THOSE SPECIFIC AIM PAGES
OR ONE PAGERS TO THE PROGRAM OFFICERS.
SO WE'RE HOPEFUL THAT
THAT'S WHAT THIS PARTICULAR WORKSHOP IS,
IS WHAT YOU GUYS WILL DO AND SHARE WITH YOUR PIS.
- [DORIT] ANYONE ELSE?
GO AHEAD.
- AND HOW THAT MAY INFLUENCE YOUR RESPONSE.
SO IF YOU HAVE 60 SPECIFIC AIMS PAGES FROM PWIS
OR RESEARCH-INTENSIVE INSTITUTIONS,
AND THEN YOU HAVE A FEW COMING
FROM LOW-RESOURCE INSTITUTIONS,
AND, I DON'T KNOW,
IT MAY NOT BE,
BUT IF THE NARRATIVE IS DIFFERENT BETWEEN THE TWO,
IS THERE A TRAINING ON PROGRAM OFFICER'S SIDES
OR SOME SORT OF DIRECTION
ON HOW TO NAVIGATE LOW-RESOURCE INSTITUTIONS
TOWARDS A CERTAIN PATH?
- SO, WELL,
I MEAN, I WOULD SAY,
YOU KNOW, AS A PROGRAM OFFICER,
I READ ALL OF THE SPECIFIC AIMS THAT COME MY WAY.
SO IT'S NOT THAT I'M, YOU KNOW,
DECIDING WHOSE I'M GOING TO READ.
YOU KNOW, MY GOAL IS TO MOVE FORWARD A AREA
OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH,
A BODY OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH.
SO IF A SPECIFIC AIM COMES TO ME,
IT LOOKS LIKE IT STAYS IN MY INSTITUTE,
I'M GONNA READ THE SPECIFIC AIMS.
AND WHEN I HAVE THE DIALOGUE WITH THE PI,
I CAN ADVISE, YOU KNOW,
"HEY, THIS LOOKS LIKE IT WOULD BE A GOOD SUBMISSION
FOR THIS PARTICULAR NOSI
OR AREA OF RESEARCH,"
OR MAYBE NOT, IT MAY NEED TO GO SOMEWHERE ELSE,
BUT AT LEAST, YOU KNOW,
I HAVE READ THE SPECIFIC AIMS.
SO ALL OF THE POS SHOULD BE READING ANY SPECIFIC AIMS
THAT COMES TO THEM
AND IT BELONGS IN THEIR INSTITUTE.
- AND LET ME JUST ADD,
FOR ME PERSONALLY,
I DEAL WITH PEOPLE AS INDIVIDUALS.
SO WHAT I MEAN BY THAT IS,
SOUNDS A LITTLE CLICHE,
BUT WHAT I MEAN BY THAT IS
IF SOMEBODY'S ASKING ME EXTRA QUESTIONS,
I ANSWER EXTRA QUESTIONS.
IF SOMEBODY'S, YOU KNOW,
AND IT DOESN'T MATTER WHERE THEY'RE FROM,
I THINK IT'S MORE OFTEN THAT THERE ARE INVESTIGATORS
WHO EITHER DON'T HAVE REALLY GOOD MENTORING
OR ARE FROM INSTITUTIONS
WHERE THEY DON'T HAVE A LOT OF SUPPORT
WHERE THEY MAY HAVE MORE QUESTIONS.
IF YOU HAVE MORE QUESTIONS FOR ME, I'M GONNA ANSWER 'EM.
SO I THINK THAT GETS TO WHAT I THINK YOU'RE SAYING,
IS THAT ARE YOU, YOU KNOW,
ARE YOU GETTING THE SAME TREATMENT
IF YOU'RE NOT FROM,
YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE HIGH FLYERS?
AND MY ANSWER IS,
AT LEAST IN MY OFFICE YOU ARE.
AND I THINK THAT'S TRUE FOR MOST,
I BELIEVE THAT'S TRUE FOR MOST OF US.
- [DORIT] YEAH, GO AHEAD.
- IT'S OKAY, THANK YOU.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR ALL OF YOUR EXCELLENT ADVICE.
I'M WONDERING WHAT ADVICE WOULD YOU GIVE
TO EARLY-STAGE FACULTY WHO DO GET AN R01-LEVEL AWARD
IN TERMS OF MAKING DECISIONS
ABOUT MAYBE APPLYING FOR ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENTS.
THINKING ABOUT DEVELOPING A PROGRAM OF RESEARCH,
WHAT ADVICE WOULD YOU GIVE THEM?
- SO I'LL JUMP IN FIRST AND SAY,
FIRST OFF IS,
I THINK IF YOU'RE GETTING YOUR FIRST R01
AS AN EARLY-CAREER PERSON,
FIRST AND FOREMOST, YOU KNOW,
EYES ON THE PRIZE, RIGHT?
WHAT IS ON YOUR PLATE?
FOCUS ON MAKING SURE
THAT YOU CAN BE SUCCESSFUL WITH THAT GRANT
AND WITH YOUR OTHER INSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES.
MAKE SURE YOU KNOW YOUR PRIORITIES.
I KNOW A LOT OF FOLKS IN ACADEMIA, YOU KNOW,
ALSO HAVE A LOT OF MENTORING RESPONSIBILITIES,
AND THEY LOVE THAT
AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT TO THEM.
YOU KNOW, EVERY TIME YOU TAKE ON ANOTHER GRANT,
ANOTHER SUPPLEMENT, ANOTHER THIS, ANOTHER THAT,
YOU HAVE TO BE PREPARED
TO WORK THAT INTO YOUR WORKFLOW.
AND I THINK, SO LET ME BE VERY CLEAR
THAT I THINK,
ABSOLUTELY, TAKE ADVANTAGE OF EVERY OPPORTUNITY,
BUT MAKE SURE YOU DON'T BITE OFF MORE THAN YOU CAN CHEW
AND MAKE SURE THAT YOU MAKE ARRANGEMENTS
TO WORK THAT INTO YOUR WORKFLOW,
BECAUSE YOU WANNA BE SUCCESSFUL WITH THAT R01.
YOU DON'T WANNA GET TO THE END OF THAT R01
AND YOU DON'T HAVE YOUR PAPERS,
YOU HAD DELAYS
SO YOU'RE NOT SHOWING PRODUCTIVITY.
THAT'S NOT HELPING YOU BUILD YOUR CAREER.
SO THAT WOULD BE MY ADVICE.
- [TIFFANI] I AGREE.
NO, I AGREE WITH THAT.
- SO, SHAWN HOLT,
WINSTON-SALEM STATE UNIVERSITY.
SO YOU MENTIONED A FEW TIMES,
"IF THE PROGRAM OFFICER IS IN THE ROOM."
WHY WOULDN'T YOU BE IN THE ROOM?
- GREAT QUESTION! (TIFFANI LAUGHS)
I LOVE THAT QUESTION.
SO, FIRST OF ALL,
NOWADAYS IT'S A VIRTUAL ROOM.
IT USED TO BE PHYSICALLY,
WHEN I FIRST STARTED,
YOU WERE PHYSICALLY SITTING IN THE ROOM WITH THE REVIEWERS.
NOW, TYPICALLY YOU'RE ON THE PHONE
OR LOOKING AT A VIDEO,
TYPICALLY LOOKING AT A VIDEO.
THE REASON THAT SOMETIMES WE'RE NOT THERE IS BECAUSE,
I KNOW WHEN I WAS IN PROGRAM,
I HAD MAYBE APPLICATIONS
IN ABOUT 10 DIFFERENT STUDY SECTIONS
IN ANY GIVEN ROUND,
AND SOMETIMES THEY CONFLICT.
AND SOMETIMES I HAD A COLLEAGUE COVER
THAT OTHER STUDY SECTION
BECAUSE MAYBE MY COLLEAGUE HAD A GRANT
IN THAT STUDY SECTION TOO.
SO THAT'S WHY PERSONALLY I MIGHT NOT BE IN THE ROOM.
I THINK IT CAN VARY FROM INSTITUTE TO INSTITUTE
HOW THAT'S HANDLED.
- RIGHT, SO SIMILAR TO WHAT DR. CRUMP SAID,
THERE MAY BE CONFLICTING TIMES FOR THE SCHEDULING.
THERE MAY BE A U54 THAT'S BEING REVIEWED
VERSUS, YOU KNOW, LIKE A R21.
SO, YOU KNOW, OUR ATTENTION HAS TO BE AT THAT U54.
WE ALSO HAVE,
WE MAY HAVE A ANALYST,
OR LIKE DR. CRUMP SAID,
A COLLEAGUE IN THE ROOM.
BUT 9 TIMES OUTTA 10,
THEY'RE TAKING NOTES, YOU KNOW,
THEY SHARE THEIR INFORMATION BACK WITH THE PROGRAM OFFICER.
IF THERE'S ANYTHING,
LIKE IF THERE'S A APPLICANT WHO ASKED ME A QUESTION
AND I WASN'T THERE,
I WILL CERTAINLY REFER BACK TO THE NOTES.
AND IF THERE'S SOMETHING I NEED TO ASK
WHO WAS THERE IN THE ROOM,
I'LL GO BACK AND ASK THEM
TO PROVIDE THE INFORMATION TO THE PI.
- SO, INFORMATION FROM THE SRO WOULD BE APPROPRIATE OR NOT?
NOT TO THE INVESTIGATOR,
BUT TO YOU ALL.
- NOPE. - OH.
- NO, THE SRO REALLY HAS HIS OR HER ATTENTION
OR THEIR ATTENTION FULLY ON THE REVIEW.
THE PROGRAM REALLY WORK WITH ONE ANOTHER
TO MAKE SURE THAT OUR NEEDS ARE MET.
THAT'S HOW WE KIND OF DIVIDE OURSELVES.
WE (CHUCKLES) DEFINITELY HAVE A DIVISION OF LABOR.
- [DORIT] OKAY.
OKAY, GO AHEAD.
WE HAVE ABOUT FIVE MORE MINUTES FOR THIS ONE,
SO THERE'S STILL TIME.
- JUST BROUGHT UP YOUR DISCUSSION
ABOUT THE VIRTUAL REVIEW NOW,
IS THAT GONNA BE COMPLETELY GOING FORWARD?
JUST BECAUSE, I MEAN,
IN MY EXPERIENCE,
THOSE WERE GREAT PLACES IN PERSON
TO SPEND TIME WITH PEOPLE,
TO GET TO KNOW COLLEAGUES,
TO BE ABLE TO FIND PEOPLE TO WRITE THE LETTERS
THAT YOU OR YOUR MENTEES NEED,
AND YOU JUST DON'T GET THAT ON VIRTUAL.
SO, I JUST,
IT'S REALLY ABOUT THE, YEAH,
SO THAT'S MY PERSONAL OPINION,
IS THAT IT OBVIOUSLY SAVES A LOT OF MONEY,
AND I GET IT,
BUT IT REALLY IS A PLACE TO DEVELOP THOSE CONTACTS
TO GET THOSE LETTERS, IN MY EXPERIENCE.
- YEAH. - EVEN BETTER
THAN CONFERENCES. - YEAH.
- YES. - YEAH, PLEASE, PLEASE.
- HI, I'M BRETT SPEAR,
I'M AT UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY,
I CO-DIRECT THE SURE RESOURCE CENTER.
I'VE BEEN ON A LOT OF STUDY SECTIONS,
I'M CHAIRING A STUDY SECTION RIGHT NOW.
STUDY SECTION'S A LOT MORE EFFECTIVE WHEN YOU'RE IN PERSON.
AND FOR OUR STUDY SECTION,
WE MEET ONE OUT OF EVERY THREE,
WE MEET IN PERSON ONCE,
AND THEN WE HAVE TWO VIRTUALS,
I THINK THAT'S PRETTY COMMON NOW.
- YEAH, IT'S TOTALLY UP TO THE SRO,
AS I UNDERSTAND IT.
HOW- - THAT MAY BE
ANOTHER QUESTION FOR BRUCE.
- RIGHT. - YEAH, YEAH.
- YEAH. - YEAH, YEAH.
YES, YES.
- BUT YEAH, THERE'S A LOT, A LOT OF VALUE
TO HAVING IN-PERSON STUDY SECTIONS.
BUT, AGAIN, I WOULD ENCOURAGE FOR OPPORTUNITIES
FOR NEW FACULTY TO BE, YOU KNOW,
A PANEL ON A STUDY SECTION.
ALWAYS ENCOURAGE YOUR FACULTY
TO SIT ON A STUDY SECTION IF THEY CAN.
IT'S AN INCREDIBLY GREAT LEARNING EXPERIENCE,
ESPECIALLY IF YOU'RE IN PERSON,
BUT EVEN IF NOT,
SO ALWAYS ENCOURAGE THAT.
- [DORIT] ANY MORE QUESTIONS?
GO AHEAD. - WELL, JUST A COMMENT,
BECAUSE A LOT OF THE PERSONS HERE
ARE FROM MINORITY-SERVING INSTITUTIONS
THAT MIGHT NOT GET THIS.
BECAUSE WE'RE RESOURCE-LIMITED,
WE ALWAYS FIGURE OUT OR ASSUME THAT THERE'S NO MONEY.
SO THE FACULTY MEMBERS
OR THE PROFESSORS FROM THE INSTITUTIONS
THAT WANT TO GO SIT ON STUDY SECTIONS,
THEY WILL PAY, PARTICULARLY IF IT'S IN PERSON.
SO I REMEMBER THE FIRST TIME I WAS INVITED,
I DIDN'T GO BECAUSE I'M SAYING, "I'M NOT PAYING FOR THIS,
AND THE INSTITUTION DOESN'T HAVE MONEY."
BUT NOBODY EVER TOLD ME,
NOT EVEN MY MENTORS,
DAVID INCLUDED, (CHUCKLES) (ATTENDEES LAUGHING)
THAT THE NIH WOULD PAY FOR YOUR TRAVEL.
SO, THEY WILL PAY FOR YOUR TRAVEL
AND THEY WILL GIVE YOU AN HONORARIUM FOR YOUR TIME.
- OKAY.
ANY MORE QUESTIONS?
(ATTENDEES CLAPPING)
YEAH, PLEASE JOIN ME.
THANKS, DR. CRUMP AND DR. LASH,
OR OTHERWISE KNOWN AS TIFFANI AND ARIA.
I'M ALLERGIC TOO.
AND THANK YOU FOR REALLY ALL THE WORK YOU DO
AS WELL AS THE INFORMATION YOU'VE IMPARTED TODAY.
WE'LL TAKE A BREAK NOW.
BRUCE REED WILL BE BACK
TO TALK ABOUT THE CENTER FOR SCIENTIFIC REVIEW,
AND YOU CAN ASK HIM ALL THOSE QUESTIONS AT THREE O'CLOCK,
SO WE'LL RECONVENE AT THREE.
(NO AUDIO)
WELCOME BACK, EVERYONE.
- ONE MORE SESSION.
TWO SPEAKERS TO GO.
IT'S BEEN A REALLY GOOD DAY SO FAR,
AND I'M HAPPY TO WELCOME BACK BRUCE REED,
THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF THE CENTER FOR SCIENTIFIC REVIEW.
ALL YOURS.
- ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU.
LET'S SEE HERE.
WHERE ARE OUR SLIDES?
OKAY.
ALL RIGHT.
OKAY.
SO I'M GONNA RUN THROUGH SOME SLIDES
ON OUR EFFORTS TO PROMOTE FAIRNESS IN PEER REVIEW.
I DON'T WANT IT TO BE FORMAL.
IF YOU WANNA INTERRUPT WITH QUESTIONS
ALONG THE WAY, THAT'S FINE,
I'M GONNA TRY TO LEAVE PLENTY OF TIME
FOR QUESTIONS AT THE END.
AND JUST TO REMIND YOU,
WE DO HAVE A BREAKOUT SESSION TOMORROW AS WELL
THAT FOCUSES ON PEER REVIEW.
AND SO IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS THEN,
COME BACK TO THEM THEN AS WELL.
LET ME JUST START WITH AN OVERVIEW, WHICH,
YOU KNOW, WHEN I LOOKED AT THE ROSTER
OF THE SCHOOLS THAT ARE REPRESENTED HERE,
THERE'S A REALLY WIDE RANGE IN EXPERIENCE.
AND SO, YOU KNOW,
I GUESS THAT'S A WAY OF SAYING,
EXCUSE ME IF IT SEEMS TOO BASIC,
EXCUSE ME IF IT'S MAKING ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT WHAT YOU KNOW,
IT'S A LITTLE BIT HARD TO GUESS,
BUT LET ME KNOW WITH YOUR QUESTIONS.
SO JUST QUICKLY,
YOU KNOW, WE OFTEN FOCUS ON THE REVIEW OF R01S
AND BIG RESEARCH PROJECT GRANTS,
AND JUST TO REMIND YOU ALL,
IT SEEMED LIKE YOU WERE AWARE
IN THE DISCUSSION THIS MORNING,
IT'S NOT ALL R01S,
IT'S NOT ALL EVEN R21S,
THERE ARE A WHOLE VARIETY OF SMALLER GRANT MECHANISMS
THAT DON'T NECESSARILY INVOLVE THE SAME LEVEL OF RESOURCES,
THE SAME LEVEL OF PRELIMINARY DATA,
THE SAME STRUCTURES THAT THESE BIGGER AWARDS DO.
THERE'S ALSO THE SMALL BUSINESS AWARDS,
AND THOSE ARE BY DEFINITION COMING OUT OF SMALL BUSINESSES.
AND THEN THERE ARE THE INDIVIDUAL
AND INSTITUTIONAL TRAINING GRANTS.
THIS IS PERHAPS A POINT THAT'S BEEN MADE,
BUT WHEN YOU APPLY FOR FUNDING
TO THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON HEALTH,
YOU'RE NOT ACTUALLY APPLYING TO NIH,
YOU APPLY TO ONE OF THE INSTITUTES.
THERE'S, WHAT, 24 FUNDING INSTITUTES,
AND YOU'RE APPLYING TO ONE OF THOSE.
SO THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS THAT IT'S IMPORTANT
TO TALK TO A PROGRAM OFFICER,
'CAUSE THEY'RE NOT ALL THE SAME,
THEY DON'T ALL HAVE THE SAME PRIORITIES.
YOU WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WHAT YOU ARE INTERESTED
IN WORKING ON IS OF INTEREST TO THEM
AND THAT YOU'RE PURSUING A MECHANISM
THAT THEY'RE INTERESTED IN FUNDING.
SO YOU HAVE ALL THESE DIFFERENT FUNDING INSTITUTES.
MOST OF THOSE HAVE THEIR OWN SMALL REVIEW OPERATIONS.
AS I TOLD YOU THIS MORNING,
CSR DOES THE LION'S SHARE OF THE REVIEW FOR ALL OF NIH,
AND WE SERVE ALL OF THE INSTITUTES.
KNOWING WHAT NIH WANTS TO FUND IS A REALLY COMPLICATED THING
BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT YOU GOT 24 FUNDING INSTITUTES.
THEY EACH HAVE THEIR OWN PRIORITIES.
YOU KNOW, THEY ANNOUNCE THEM IN VARIOUS WAYS,
YOU KNOW, THROUGH THE NOFOS,
THROUGH THE NOTICES OF SPECIAL INTEREST.
JUST BROADLY, YOU KNOW,
I THINK PEOPLE NEED TO BALANCE BEING OPPORTUNISTIC
WITH WHAT STRENGTHS YOU HAVE.
YOU WANNA LOOK AT WHAT'S THERE,
BUT YOU OBVIOUSLY NEED TO PLAY TO YOUR STRENGTHS.
AND SO, AGAIN,
WE'VE HEARD THIS BEFORE,
TALK TO PROGRAM IN ADVANCE,
SO LET ME TURN TO JUST A LITTLE BIT
ABOUT THE PEER REVIEW SYSTEM WE USE.
NIH USES A TWO-LEVEL SYSTEM.
SO, YOU KNOW,
MOST OF THE TIME WHEN YOU THINK OF PEER REVIEW,
YOU'RE THINKING OF REVIEW PANELS,
AND THAT'S ACTUALLY THE FIRST LEVEL OF PEER REVIEW.
THE SOLE PURPOSE OF THOSE STUDY SECTIONS
IS TO EVALUATE THE SCIENTIFIC
AND TECHNICAL MERIT OF THE APPLICATIONS.
SO PANELS ARE NOT MAKING FUNDING DECISIONS.
PANELS ARE SIMPLY JUDGING SCIENTIFIC MERIT.
FUNDING DECISIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUNDING GET
MADE
AT THE SECOND LEVEL OF REVIEW,
SO THESE ARE THE NATIONAL ADVISORY COUNCILS
FOR EACH OF THOSE 24 FUNDING INSTITUTES
THAT I WAS REFERRING TO.
SO, AGAIN,
THE PROCESSES VARY FROM INSTITUTE TO INSTITUTE.
SOME ARE WHAT WE CALL SORT OF A HARD PAYLINE,
SO IF YOU GOT A SCORE THAT'S BETTER THAN THE PAYLINE,
IT'S EXTREMELY LIKELY YOU'LL GET FUNDED.
OTHERS USE THAT AS A BROAD SUGGESTION,
AND THEIR OWN INSTITUTE PRIORITIES,
SCIENTIFIC PRIORITIES
AND OTHER KINDS OF PRIORITIES COME INTO PLAY,
AND THEY MOVE QUITE A BIT ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.
THEY SKIP SOME OF THE APPLICATIONS THAT ARE BELOW THAT
AND THEY GO AND GET SOME OF THEM THAT ARE SCORED ABOVE THAT.
SO BOTH OF THOSE LEVELS.
SO EVERY APPLICATION THAT GETS FUNDED HAS TO GO
THROUGH BOTH OF THOSE LEVELS,
AND BOTH OF THEM HAVE SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
ON WHAT GETS FUNDED IN THE END.
SO, AGAIN, THE FIRST LEVEL OF PEER REVIEW
IS TO JUDGE SCIENTIFIC MERIT.
SO THAT'S THE MISSION OF CSR.
IT'S TO ENSURE THAT NIH GRANT APPLICATIONS RECEIVE FAIR,
INDEPENDENT, EXPERT, TIMELY SCIENTIFIC REVIEWS,
FREE OF INAPPROPRIATE INFLUENCES,
SO THAT NIH CAN FUND THE MOST PROMISING RESEARCH.
THAT'S WHAT WE DO.
AND AS I SHOWED YOU THIS MORNING,
WE DO THAT ON A LARGE SCALE,
60,000 APPLICATIONS,
20,000 REVIEWERS,
1,200 REVIEW MEETINGS A YEAR.
SO THE REST OF WHAT I'M GONNA TALK ABOUT
IS VARIOUS INITIATIVES
THAT CSR AND NIH HAVE UNDERTAKEN
OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS,
ALL AIMED AT MAKING THE REVIEW PROCESS MORE FAIR
AND MORE EFFECTIVE.
AND I JUST MAKE THE POINT
THAT THOSE ARE CLOSELY LINKED.
SO A PROCESS THAT'S UNFAIR IS INEFFECTIVE, RIGHT,
BY DEFINITION.
AND THE MORE EFFECTIVE YOU MAKE A PROCESS,
THE MORE FAIR IT IS.
SO IF YOU'RE REALLY JUDGING SCIENTIFIC MERIT,
IT'S A FAIR PROCESS.
IF YOU'RE JUDGING OTHER KINDS OF THINGS,
THAT'S WHERE IT BECOMES UNFAIR.
SO THERE'S A VARIETY OF STEPS THAT WE'VE TAKEN.
ONE IS TO MAKE SUSTAINED EFFORTS
TO DIVERSIFY REVIEW PANELS.
WHEN I SAY DIVERSIFY,
I MEAN ALONG MULTIPLE DIMENSIONS.
SO THIS IS THE STRATEGY,
OR THESE ARE THE STRATEGIES
THAT WE'VE PURSUED IN TRYING TO DO THIS.
IT REALLY STARTS WITH TRYING TO PERSUADE PEOPLE,
INCLUDING, MOST IMPORTANTLY, OUR OWN PEOPLE,
OUR OWN SROS,
MAKING SURE THAT THEY UNDERSTAND THE CRITICAL NEED
FOR NIH TO HEAR DIVERSE PERSPECTIVES.
AND IT'S ONLY BY HAVING THOSE DIVERSE PERSPECTIVES
THAT WE CAN FULFILL THE MISSION OF PEER REVIEW,
WHICH IS TO IDENTIFY THE BEST SCIENCE.
SO THE MOST EFFECTIVE REVIEW COMMITTEES ARE DIVERSE
ALONG MULTIPLE DIMENSIONS.
SO THAT INCLUDES THE SCIENTIFIC BACKGROUND,
THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE REVIEWERS,
ALSO, DEMOGRAPHIC DIVERSITY,
GEOGRAPHIC DIVERSITY,
A RANGE OF CAREER STAGES,
AND A RANGE OF PRIOR PEER REVIEW PERFORMANCE,
OR EXPERIENCE.
WE WANT ALL THOSE THINGS TO BE REPRESENTED ON REVIEW PANELS.
SO, AN ASPECT OF THAT IS TO GET OUR SROS AWAY
FROM THE SORT OF MENTAL ROLODEX,
WHICH IS JUST TO SAY
WE DON'T WANT THEM USING FAMILIAR PEOPLE ALL THE TIME.
WE DON'T WANT THEM SAYING,
"OKAY, WHO CAN COVER THIS TOPIC?"
SO WE'VE WORKED AT CREATING TOOLS
TO HELP THEM IDENTIFY LESSER-KNOWN, LESS-USED
REVIEWERS
AND BRING THEM INTO THE PROCESS.
WE'VE ALSO TAKEN STEPS TO LIMIT EXCESSIVE SERVICE,
SO IF YOU GO BACK FIVE, SIX YEARS,
YOU'D SEE TOO MANY CASES
WHERE SOME PEOPLE WERE SERVING AN ENORMOUS AMOUNT
ON PEER REVIEW.
AND, YOU KNOW, JUST PHILOSOPHICALLY,
REGARDLESS OF HOW GOOD A SCIENTIST THEY ARE
OR HOW GOOD A REVIEWER THEY ARE,
THAT'S ONE PERSPECTIVE,
AND YOU NEED TO ROTATE PERSPECTIVES OVER TIME.
AND SO WE REALLY DO NOW LIMIT THE EXTENT OF SERVICE
THAT ANY SINGLE REVIEWER CAN PROVIDE,
AND THIS CONTRIBUTES TO TURNOVER ON THE PANELS.
SO THESE STEPS IN CONCERT HAVE BEEN MAKING A DIFFERENCE.
SO IF YOU LOOK AT THESE LINES,
LET'S LOOK AT THE BOTTOM SET OF LINES THERE
WITH UNDERREPRESENTED MINORITIES.
SO WHAT ARE YOU LOOKING AT?
LET'S SEE, SO,
WELL, OKAY, SO THE DARK GREEN LINE THERE,
THAT SHOWS YOU THE PERCENT OF PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATORS
WHO ARE UNDERREPRESENTED MINORITIES.
SO IN 2020, THAT WAS,
THAT WAS WHAT, 8%?
AND THIS YEAR,
IT'S STAYED ABOUT FLAT, IT'S 9%.
IN CONTRAST, IF YOU LOOK AT THE PERCENT
OF APPOINTED MEMBERS ON OUR STANDING STUDY SECTIONS
WHO ARE UNDERREPRESENTED MINORITIES,
THAT'S 16%.
AND IF YOU LOOK AT SPECIAL EMPHASIS PANELS,
THESE ARE PEOPLE WHO ALL SERVE ON A TEMPORARY BASIS,
THAT'S 13%,
SO THEY'RE OVERREPRESENTED.
AND IF YOU LOOK BACK,
IT'S GRADUAL PROGRESS ON BOTH OF THOSE SINCE 2020.
AND SIMILARLY FOR WOMEN,
AGAIN, THE REALLY DARK LINE IS THE PERCENT
OF PIS WHO ARE WOMEN, 34%.
AND IN CONTRAST,
41% OF THE REVIEWERS
ON OUR SPECIAL EMPHASIS PANELS ARE WOMEN,
AND 45% OF THE APPOINTED MEMBERS ARE WOMEN.
SO, IN BOTH CASES,
WE'VE MADE AN EFFORT TO,
IN A SENSE, OVERREPRESENT THESE GROUPS
THAT HAVE BEEN TRADITIONALLY UNDERREPRESENTED
ON OUR STUDY SECTIONS.
SO, THERE IS MORE WORK TO BE DONE THERE,
BUT THESE EFFORTS ARE CONTINUING.
LET ME SHOW YOU ANOTHER AREA
IN WHICH YOU SEE CHANGE,
YOU SEE INCREASED DIVERSITY OVER THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS.
WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT HERE
IS THE COMPOSITION OF REVIEW PANELS.
THESE ARE STANDING STUDY SECTION MEMBERS.
AND THIS SHOWS MEMBERS ACCORDING TO THEIR ACADEMIC RANK.
SO IF YOU LOOK OVER ON YOUR LEFT
AT WHAT IT LOOKED LIKE IN 2019,
THE LIGHT BLUE THERE IS FULL PROFESSORS.
SO 74, AT THAT TIME,
74% OF THE MEMBERS WERE FULL PROFESSORS,
AND THE DARKER BLUE, 21%, WERE ASSOCIATES,
AND THAT INVISIBLE GRAY AT THE BOTTOM WAS THE 1%
WHO WERE ASSISTANT PROFESSORS.
AND SO THEN IF YOU LOOK
OVER TO THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE GRAPH,
YOU SEE THE CHANGE.
SO THE PERCENT OF PROFESSORS IS DISTINCTLY LOWER,
IT'S 45% NOW.
IT'S ABOUT 44% ASSOCIATES,
AND ABOUT 8% ARE ASSISTANTS.
SO DIVERSIFICATION OF THE STUDY SECTION MEMBERSHIP
IS ONE AREA THAT WE'VE MADE CHANGES.
WE TALKED A LITTLE THIS MORNING
ABOUT THE EARLY-CAREER REVIEWER PROGRAM.
THIS IS ONE OF THE WAYS WE,
I THINK, MAKE AN INVESTMENT IN OUR FUTURE REVIEWERS.
THIS IS A PROGRAM BY WHICH EARLY-STAGE PEOPLE,
PEOPLE WHO DON'T HAVE AN NIH GRANT YET,
THEY'VE SUBMITTED AN APPLICATION,
BUT THEY HAVEN'T BEEN AWARDED A GRANT,
THEY CAN SERVE ON STUDY SECTIONS IN A LIMITED CAPACITY.
AND FEW YEARS AGO,
WE REVAMPED THIS PROGRAM.
WE USED TO REQUIRE
JUST ONE EARLY-CAREER REVIEWER ON A PANEL,
NOW WE REQUIRE TWO,
THAT MEANS THAT EVERY ROUND OF REVIEW,
WE'RE INVITING ABOUT 400 OF THESE EARLY-CAREER PEOPLE
TO SERVE ON PANELS
AND REALLY GET THAT SORT OF VALUABLE EXPERIENCE.
YOU KNOW, WE BELIEVE
THAT THIS WILL HELP PEOPLE SCIENTIFICALLY
AND WE THINK IT'LL FORM THE FOUNDATION,
AS THEY SAY, IN A FEW YEARS,
PAYS OFF IN A MORE DIVERSE POOL
FOR OUR STUDY SECTION MEMBERSHIP.
OKAY.
LET ME GO OVER A FEW THINGS THAT WE'VE DONE
TO TRY TO MITIGATE BIAS.
SO, AGAIN, THIS MORNING
WE TALKED ABOUT THE CONCEPT OF REPUTATIONAL BIAS.
AND REPUTATIONAL BIAS IS CERTAINLY
WHAT YOU SEE MOST CLEARLY
IN STUDY SECTION MEETINGS.
YOU OFTEN HEAR IT,
IT'S JUST ABSOLUTELY BLATANT.
YOU CAN HEAR THE FIRST ASSIGNED REVIEWER
SOMETIMES SAY THINGS LIKE,
"THIS APPLICATION COMES FROM A CRYO-EM SUPERSTAR,"
THAT'S THE FIRST THING THEY SAY.
THEY HAVEN'T SAID ANYTHING ABOUT THE SCIENCE,
THEY'VE JUST TOLD YOU WHO IT IS,
AND THAT SORT OF, YOU KNOW,
THAT PUTS EVERYTHING THAT FOLLOWS IN A CERTAIN LIGHT.
THAT'S THE KIND OF BIAS WE'RE TRYING TO REDUCE
AND TRY TO MITIGATE.
SO IN 2021,
CSR CREATED BIAS AWARENESS MITIGATION TRAINING.
IT'S SPECIFICALLY TARGETED TOWARDS THAT FORM OF BIAS.
IT'S NOT AN IMPLICIT BIAS TRAINING.
THIS SAYS 25,000 REVIEWS,
IT'S ACTUALLY MORE LIKE 34,000 HAVE TAKEN THIS TRAINING
AT THIS POINT.
IT HAS NOW BECOME REQUIRED BY THE NIH
SO THAT ANYBODY WHO WANTS TO SERVE ON A PANEL,
BEFORE THEY SERVE FOR THE FIRST TIME,
THEY HAVE TO TAKE THIS TRAINING.
THE TRAINING HAS BEEN REALLY WELL REGARDED.
IF YOU LOOK AT IT,
PEOPLE SAY NICE THINGS ABOUT IT.
THAT'S NICE, BUT WHAT WE'RE REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT
IS WHETHER IT'S MAKING A DIFFERENCE.
IF YOU ASK THEM IF IT'S MAKING A DIFFERENCE,
THEY SAY THAT IT IS.
SO, FOR EXAMPLE, WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT,
THAT GRAPH,
IT'S HOW PEOPLE RESPOND TO THE QUESTIONS
ABOUT HOW MUCH MORE COMFORTABLE DID THE TRAINING MAKE YOU
IN INTERVENING WHEN YOU HEAR SOMETHING BIASED.
AND SO 90% OF THE PEOPLE WHO TOOK THE TRAINING SAY
THAT IT WAS EITHER MODERATELY
OR TO A LARGE EXTENT MADE THEM MORE COMFORTABLE,
SO THAT'S GOOD AS WELL.
BUT THAT'S WHAT PEOPLE SAY THEY'RE DOING.
I'LL SAY THAT WE DO SEE THIS IN STUDY SECTIONS.
WE ACTUALLY SEE STUDY SECTIONS
WHERE PEOPLE WILL SAY SOMETHING
THAT'S FAIRLY OBVIOUSLY BIASED,
AND ONE OF THE OTHER COMMITTEE MEMBERS WILL PIPE UP AND SAY,
"HEY, YOU KNOW, DID YOU NOT TAKE THE TRAINING?
THAT'S JUST WHAT WE TOLD YOU NOT TO DO."
YOU KNOW, SO WE DO GET THAT.
SO IT'S TAKING HOLD AT THAT LEVEL.
AND WANNA MAKE SURE THAT PEOPLE UNDERSTAND
THAT APPLICANTS, REVIEWERS,
ANYBODY CAN REPORT INSTANCES OF BIAS DIRECTLY TO CSR.
THAT'S THE EMAIL ADDRESS THAT YOU CAN USE.
THIS IS A BOX WE MONITOR.
WE LOOK AT EVERYTHING THAT COMES IN.
SO WHEN SOMETHING COMES IN,
WE INVESTIGATE IT.
AND IF WE THINK THAT THE COMPLAINT IS RIGHT,
AND WE DO SOMETIMES THINK THAT THE COMPLAINT IS RIGHT,
THAT THE REVIEW IS BIASED,
WE WILL RE-REVIEW THAT APPLICATION
IN THE SAME COUNCIL ROUND.
SO WE'LL DO EVERYTHING WE CAN
TO NOT DISADVANTAGE THE APPLICANT.
GET THEIR APPLICATION REVIEWED,
GET IT REVIEWED RIGHT,
GET IT REVIEWED IN THAT COUNCIL ROUND.
SO THIS IS OUTSIDE OF THE NORMAL APPEALS PROCESS.
THIS ISN'T ANYBODY GOING THROUGH IT
THAT'S JUST SENDING US AN EMAIL SAYING SOMETHING WENT WRONG.
WE DON'T ALWAYS AGREE,
AND IF WE DON'T AGREE,
WE LET PEOPLE KNOW, EXPLAIN IT.
BUT PEOPLE ARE THEN FREE
TO PURSUE THE NORMAL APPEALS PROCESS.
BUT THIS IS A PROCESS PEOPLE CAN GO THROUGH
THAT'S MUCH MORE NIMBLE.
THE OTHER THING TO NOTE ABOUT THIS
IS WE DON'T JUST TRY TO FIX THE APPLICATION,
WE TRY TO FIX THE SOURCE OF THE PROBLEM.
SO IF SOME REVIEWER WROTE SOMETHING
THAT WAS BIASED IN A CRITIQUE,
WE ASK ONE OF OUR DIVISION DIRECTORS TO CALL THEM UP
AND TO HAVE A CHAT ABOUT IT.
AND, YOU KNOW, WE TRY TO MAKE IT NOT A SCOLDY CONVERSATION
BUT AN INFORMATIVE CONVERSATION.
SAY, "HEY, YOU KNOW,
LOOK, THIS IS WHAT YOU SAID.
THIS WAS PROBLEMATIC,
DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHY IT WAS PROBLEMATIC?
YOU KNOW, WHAT WERE YOU TRYING TO SAY?
WAS IT SOMETHING MISPLACED?"
WE GO THROUGH A CONVERSATION WITH THEM.
AND MOST OF THOSE CONVERSATIONS ARE PRETTY PRODUCTIVE,
AND THE WHOLE POINT IS TO TRY TO CHANGE BEHAVIOR
AND ULTIMATELY CHANGE THE CULTURE ON THESE REVIEW PANELS.
THEN, BRIEFLY,
I WANNA TALK ABOUT TWO OTHER INITIATIVES.
SO CSR TOOK INITIATIVES
TO CHANGE THE REVIEW FRAMEWORKS
THAT IS ESSENTIALLY THE REVIEW CRITERIA
THAT ARE USED IN EVALUATING APPLICATIONS,
BOTH FOR RESEARCH PROJECT GRANTS,
AND THEN IN A SEPARATE EFFORT,
THE PROCEDURES FOR EVALUATING FELLOWSHIP APPLICATIONS.
SO THERE ARE TWO OF THEM.
THESE WERE BOTH ADAPTED BY NIH,
THEY'RE BOTH GOING INTO EFFECT.
THEY'RE COMING FAIRLY SOON.
THEY GO INTO EFFECT FOR APPLICATIONS THAT HIT
AFTER JANUARY 25TH, 2025.
SO, THE REVIEW,
THE SIMPLIFIED REVIEW FRAMEWORK AFFECTS MOST RPGS,
SO THAT'S R01S, R03S, R21S, R15S.
IT DOES NOT AFFECT SMALL BUSINESS GRANTS,
BUT OTHERWISE MOST OF OUR MECHANISMS.
IT DOESN'T CHANGE HOW YOUR FACULTY NEED
TO WRITE APPLICATIONS
OTHER THAN THE FACT IT'S ALWAYS GOOD
TO BE AWARE OF HOW YOUR APPLICATION'S GONNA BE REVIEWED.
BUT IT DOESN'T FORCE ANY CHANGES IN THE APPLICATION ITSELF.
AND THEN THE SECOND CHANGE,
AS I SAY, IT'S A SEPARATE EFFORT,
BUT THERE IS NOW A REVIEW FRAMEWORK
AND A REVISED APPLICATION FOR FELLOWSHIP GRANTS.
SO THESE INCLUDE PRE-DOCS,
LIKE THE F31S,
POSTDOC, AND DUAL-DEGREE FELLOWSHIPS.
THEY'RE ALL AFFECTED BY THIS.
AND I'LL GO OVER THIS IN JUST A BIT MORE DETAIL,
BUT IT CHANGES BOTH THE CRITERIA
BY WHICH REVIEWERS ARE GONNA BE EVALUATING IT
AND IT MAKES SIGNIFICANT CHANGES TO THE APPLICATION ITSELF.
SO, JUST A COUPLE MORE WORDS ABOUT THESE CHANGES.
SO, THE SIMPLIFIED REVIEW FRAMEWORK.
THIS CAME ABOUT FROM CONCERNS OUT OF THE COMMUNITY
ABOUT THE INCREASED COMPLEXITY OF NIH REVIEW CRITERIA.
BASICALLY, THE CONCERN WAS
THAT REVIEWERS WERE GETTING DISTRACTED
AND NOT REALLY PAYING ATTENTION TO THEIR CORE JOB
OF JUDGING SCIENTIFIC MERIT.
AND THEN, AGAIN,
WE HEARD LOTS OF CONCERNS
ABOUT THE UNDUE INFLUENCE OF REPUTATION,
AND THESE SET OF CHANGES ARE REALLY INTENDED
TO AFFECT BOTH.
SO, THE INTENTION IS TO REFOCUS FIRST-LEVEL PEER REVIEW
ON ITS SINGULAR ROLE OF PROVIDING ADVICE TO THE AGENCY
REGARDING THE SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL MERIT
OF THE APPLICATIONS.
SO IT DOES THIS BY REFRAMING THE CRITERIA
TO TRY TO GET REVIEWERS TO THINK ABOUT THREE KEY QUESTIONS:
SHOULD IT BE DONE?
CAN IT BE DONE WELL?
AND WILL IT BE DONE?
AND IT TAKES AWAY CERTAIN ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLIANCE ITEMS
THAT REVIEWERS USED TO HAVE TO PAY ATTENTION TO
SO THEY COULD REALLY FOCUS ON THOSE.
AND IT ADDRESSES CONCERNS
ABOUT THE UNDUE INFLUENCE OF REPUTATION
BY CHANGING THE EVALUATION
OF INVESTIGATOR AND ENVIRONMENT
TO ONE OF APPROPRIATE OR NOT APPROPRIATE.
IN OTHER WORDS, THERE'S SOME GAP.
SO IT'S NOT SCORED ONE TO NINE ANYMORE,
IT'S JUST THIS BINARY JUDGMENT.
AND AS I WAS SAYING THIS MORNING,
IT'S ESSENTIALLY,
LOOK AT THE WORK THAT'S BEING PROPOSED.
DO THE APPLICANTS HAVE THE NECESSARY BACKGROUND
TO ACCOMPLISH THIS?
DO THEY HAVE THE NECESSARY RESOURCES TO GET IT DONE?
AND IF THEN IT'S RATED AS APPROPRIATE,
THAT'S HOW THAT'S HANDLED.
SO.
IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT,
YOU KNOW, HAPPY TO GO OVER THAT IN MORE DETAIL.
LET ME SPEND A COUPLE OF MINUTES TALKING
ABOUT THE CHANGES TO FELLOWSHIPS AND FELLOWSHIP REVIEW.
SO,
THE GOALS OF CHANGING THE FELLOWSHIP PROGRAM,
THERE WERE SEVERAL.
AGAIN, REALLY WANTING TO BETTER FOCUS REVIEWERS
ON THE KEY QUESTIONS THAT THEY OUGHTA BE THINKING ABOUT
ON THESE TRAINING APPLICATIONS.
AGAIN, THERE WAS AN INTEREST IN REDUCING BIAS,
REDUCING THE INAPPROPRIATE IMPACT THAT SOME BIG NAMES
AND BIG INSTITUTIONAL NAMES WERE HAVING.
THERE WAS INTEREST IN GETTING THE APPLICATION
AND THE REVIEW CRITERIA TO ALIGN MORE CLEARLY,
TO CLARIFY THE INSTRUCTIONS TO APPLICANTS,
WITH THE SORT OF FUNDAMENTAL GOAL
OF GIVING MORE EQUAL ACCESS TO CANDIDATES
ACROSS A BROAD RANGE OF ORGANIZATIONS
AND RESEARCH ENVIRONMENTS.
SO.
SO, THERE'S A LOT TO COMMUNICATE HERE,
AND I'M NOT GONNA GO OVER IT ALL NOW.
GO OVER IT IN WHATEVER DETAIL YOU WANT.
BUT IN THESE SLIDES,
WHICH I'LL MAKE SURE THAT YOU GET COPIES OF,
THERE ARE A LOT OF RESOURCES LIKE,
YOU KNOW, THERE ARE CENTRAL WEBSITES FOR THE CHANGES
FOR THE SIMPLIFIED REVIEW FRAMEWORK,
THERE'S ONE ON THE FELLOWSHIP.
INCLUDES THE DETAILS OF IT
AND LOTS OF OTHER INFORMATION THAT'LL HELP PEOPLE
IN UNDERSTANDING WHAT THIS IS ABOUT.
WITH THE FELLOWSHIPS IN PARTICULAR,
WELL, BOTH OF THESE CREATE A BIG CHALLENGE
IN TERMS OF OUTREACH, COMMUNICATION,
AND, OF COURSE, TRAINING,
TRAINING OF OUR OWN STAFF.
BUT PARTICULARLY WITH THE FELLOWSHIPS,
WE RECOGNIZE THAT, YOU KNOW,
ONE OF THE GOALS WAS TO BRING NEW INSTITUTIONS IN,
BRING NEW SCHOOLS IN.
AND SO AS WE REACH OUT
AND AS WE PUSH INFORMATION ABOUT THESE CHANGES OUT,
WE WILL BE MAKING SPECIAL EFFORTS
TO REACH SCHOOLS THAT HAVE A VERY LIMITED EXPERIENCE
WITH FELLOWSHIP APPLICATIONS.
'CAUSE ONE OF THE THINGS WE SAW IS,
WHEN WE LOOKED AT WHO SUBMITS APPLICATIONS,
FELLOWSHIP APPLICATIONS,
THERE'S A SMALL NUMBER OF SCHOOLS
THAT JUST SUBMIT A TON OF THEM.
AND THERE'S A LOT OF SCHOOLS THAT SUBMIT JUST A HANDFUL,
LIKE ONE OR TWO, THREE, FOUR, FIVE A YEAR.
AND SO IT'S REALLY THOSE SCHOOLS
THAT SUBMIT VERY FEW AT THIS POINT
THAT WE WANNA MAKE SURE ARE AWARE OF THESE CHANGES,
WHICH, AS I SAY,
I THINK, WILL HELP LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD
IN TERMS OF THEIR EVALUATION.
AND THEN,
AGAIN, AS I INVITED YOU THIS MORNING,
WE'D, YOU KNOW, LIKE TO HEAR FROM YOU TODAY,
BUT IT'S NOT JUST TODAY.
WE'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM YOU ON AN ONGOING BASIS.
AGAIN, THESE ARE SOME RESOURCES THAT YOU CAN GO TO
TO GET INFORMATION ABOUT THE APPLICATION PROCESS,
CHANGES THAT ARE COMING,
HOW TO GO THROUGH THE GRANTS PROCESS.
BUT THAT EMAIL THERE ALWAYS WORKS,
GOES TO OUR COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE,
SHE IS REALLY GOOD AT GETTING IT TO THE RIGHT PERSON.
AND SO, AGAIN,
ENCOURAGE YOUR QUESTIONS,
ENCOURAGE YOUR COMMENTS.
I WENT OVER THESE INITIATIVES REALLY QUICKLY.
THERE'S A LOT MORE INFORMATION ON OUR WEBSITE.
THERE'S A PAGE THAT'S DEVOTED
TO DESCRIBING THE DIFFERENT INITIATIVES
THAT WE'VE PUT INTO PLACE
ABOUT TRYING TO ADDRESS BIAS IN PEER REVIEW,
SO THAT'S THIS PAGE.
AGAIN, YOU'LL GET THESE SLIDES,
YOU CAN GO TO THAT AND TAKE A LOOK.
THERE'S A LOT MORE DATA AND OTHER INFORMATION THERE.
SO, WITH THAT,
I THINK I'LL PAUSE.
IN ADDITION TO, OF COURSE,
TO THAT GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS,
YOU CAN WRITE TO ME,
WRITE TO KRISTIN, OUR COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR,
AND NONI'S ALWAYS HAPPY TO GET QUESTIONS,
SHE'LL MAKE SURE THEY GET RESPONDED TO, SO.
- [DORIT] AND WE'LL MAKE SURE THAT YOUR SLIDES ARE POSTED
TO THE WEBSITE.
- YEP, YEP.
SO, OPEN TO QUESTIONS.
YES.
- SO, AT OUR INSTITUTION,
SO AN HBCU,
WE'VE NOT ENCOURAGED PEOPLE
TO SUBMIT FOR INDIVIDUAL NRSAS OR F GRANTS
BECAUSE THE REVIEW FOR SO LONG HAS BEEN BASED
ON TRAINING ENVIRONMENT.
WE SAID IT'S NOT WORTH YOUR TIME
BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE THE TRAINING ENVIRONMENT
THAT'S COMPETITIVE.
SO, CAN YOU TALK A LITTLE BIT,
SO, THIS IS JUST SO WELCOME,
AND CAN YOU TALK A LITTLE BIT
ABOUT THE PLANS FOR TRAINING REVIEWERS
AND HOW THINGS WILL BE PRESENTED TO REVIEWERS
IN A DIFFERENT WAY
TO GET THEM TO NOT JUDGE BY TRAINING ENVIRONMENT,
WHICH WAS, LIKE, THE MAJOR CRITERIA?
- WELL, SO LET ME REFRAME
WHAT YOU SAID
AND SEE IF (CHUCKLES) YOU'D AGREE WITH THIS,
BUT, YOU KNOW,
THEY DO HAVE TO EVALUATE THE TRAINING ENVIRONMENT
IN THE SENSE OF WHETHER THE ENVIRONMENT
WILL PROVIDE THE STUDENT WITH WHAT THEY NEED.
SO THE WAY THESE ARE STRUCTURED
IS THAT THE CANDIDATE,
IN ADDITION TO TELLING US ABOUT THEIR BACKGROUND,
TELLS US WHAT THEY NEED,
WHAT THEY WANT TO GET OUT OF THE FELLOWSHIP.
AND THEN IT SHOULD BE THE TASK OF THE SPONSOR
AND THE DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT
TO SHOW HOW THOSE NEEDS ARE GONNA BE MET.
AND ONE OF THE CHANGES,
ONE OF THE CHANGES IN BOTH THE APPLICATION
AND IN THE REVIEW CRITERIA
IS TO TRY TO GET REVIEWERS
TO FOCUS ON THAT VERY SPECIFICALLY.
SO IT'S NOT JUST, YOU KNOW,
SO IT'S A BIG SCHOOL,
IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THEY NECESSARILY HAVE
WHAT THAT PARTICULAR CANDIDATE NEEDS.
THEY CAN'T JUST PUT IN,
IF THEY JUST PUT IN BOILERPLATE,
WE WANT THE REVIEWERS TO LOOK AT THAT AND SAY,
"NO, WHAT WE WANNA KNOW
IS HOW YOU'RE GOING TO TRAIN THIS PARTICULAR STUDENT,"
AND THE SAME THING WITH THE SPONSORS,
WITH THE MENTORS.
THEY MAY HAVE A FABULOUS SCIENTIFIC REPUTATION,
BUT THE QUESTION IS,
HOW ARE YOU GOING TO TRAIN THIS STUDENT?
AND THE IDEA IS THAT THEY CAN'T JUST DO IT
BY DROPPING IN A TABLE OF PAST TRAINEES
AND SAYING THESE ARE THE PEOPLE
THAT I'VE TRAINED IN THE PAST,
YOU CAN'T DO THAT.
YOU HAVE TO PUT IN AN A SPECIFICALLY TAILORED STATEMENT
ABOUT HOW YOU'RE GOING TO WORK WITH THIS PARTICULAR STUDENT.
AND YOU CAN'T JUST PUT IN A LIST
OF YOUR NIH FUNDING,
'CAUSE THAT'S NOT EVEN GONNA BE ASKED FOR
AS A PART OF THE APPLICATION,
THAT'S NOT GONNA BE LOOKED AT BY THE REVIEWERS.
THE QUESTION WILL BE INSTEAD,
IS THE SCIENCE GONNA BE SUPPORTED SOMEHOW?
AND SHOW US, YOU KNOW,
THAT THESE GRANTS DON'T HAVE MONEY
FOR SUPPORT OF THE PROJECTS, REALLY,
YOU KNOW, THEY SUPPORT THE STUDENT,
SO WE NEED TO SEE THAT THE SCIENCE IS GONNA BE SUPPORTED.
BUT IT DOESN'T NEED TO BE NIH,
DOESN'T NEED TO BE NIH R01S.
WHEREVER IT'S COMING FROM, THAT'S FINE.
SO,
AND HOW DO WE TRAIN REVIEWERS?
WE START WITH TRAINING SROS.
CSR ACTUALLY HAS A TRAINING OFFICE
THAT WE'VE STOOD UP IN THE LAST THREE YEARS.
THEY HAVE PEOPLE
SO THERE'S COORDINATED OVERSIGHT,
BUT THEN WE HAVE PEOPLE WHO ARE FOCUSED ON REVIEWER TRAINING
AND WE ACTUALLY HIRED TWO PEOPLE IN THE LAST YEAR
DEVOTED TO TRAINING OF REVIEWERS
BECAUSE IT'S SUCH A BIG TASK
AND BECAUSE WE HAVE THESE TWO INITIATIVES UNDERWAY
AT THIS POINT.
SO IT'S THEIR JOB TO DEVELOP THE RESOURCES,
WHICH, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THESE WILL BE SORT OF,
YOU KNOW, MASS MARKET, IF YOU WANNA SAY,
YOU KNOW, BIG WEBINARS, THAT KIND OF THING.
BUT A LOT OF THIS IS GOING TO BE MAKING SURE
THAT OUR OWN SCIENTIFIC REVIEW OFFICERS UNDERSTAND IT,
THAT THEY HAVE THE MATERIALS,
AND THAT THEY WORK WITH THEIR REVIEWERS ONE-BY-ONE
IN ADVANCE OF THE MEETINGS.
AND THEN, YOU KNOW,
THERE'S A FEEDBACK PROCESS AS YOU GO THROUGH PEOPLE.
YOU KNOW, WE EXPECT OUR REVIEW OFFICERS
TO BE LOOKING AT THE CRITIQUES,
LOOKING AT WHAT PEOPLE SAY.
AND IF PEOPLE ARE NOT ALIGNED WITH REVIEW CRITERIA,
WE EXPECT THEM TO BE WORKING WITH THEM
TO GET THEM ALIGNED WITH THOSE CRITERIA.
YEAH.
- SO, SROS WILL BE TRAINING REVIEWERS.
WILL THAT BE AS CRITIQUES ARE COMING IN?
WILL IT BE CRITIQUE MONITORING OVER THE COURSE OF-
- IT NEEDS TO HAPPEN IN ADVANCE OF THE MEETING,
AND IT NEEDS TO HAPPEN AS THE CRITIQUES COME IN.
- [SHAWN] WHICH IS TYPICALLY LAST MINUTE, RIGHT?
I MEAN, FOR ANY
SELF-RESPECTING SCIENTIST. - YEAH, WELL, OKAY,
SO HERE'S WHAT THE SCHEDULE IS.
I MEAN, THEY DO COME IN LAST MINUTE,
BUT LAST MINUTE IS SET
TO BE SEVERAL DAYS IN ADVANCE OF THE MEETING.
AND ONE OF THE MAIN REASON
THAT WE SET IT SEVERAL DAYS IN ADVANCE OF THE MEETING
IS SO THAT SROS CAN GO THROUGH AND READ THE CRITIQUES
AND, WHEN NECESSARY,
GO BACK AND GET CLARIFICATION, GET MODIFICATIONS.
SO THERE IS A WINDOW IN THERE
WHERE THEY'VE GOT TIME TO WORK WITH PEOPLE,
BUT IT'S A LAYERED SORT OF THING WE DO, YOU KNOW,
SO, AS I SAY, STARTING WITH BROAD PUBLICITY,
WORKSHOPS, GIVING TOOLS FOR SROS TO USE.
SROS TYPICALLY TRAIN THEIR REVIEWERS
IN ADVANCE OF THE MEETING.
YOU KNOW, THEY DO IT DIFFERENT WAYS,
SOME HOLD ONE SESSION,
SOME HOLD 10, YOU KNOW, SMALL GROUPS.
BUT THEY DO IT DIFFERENT WAYS,
BUT THEY TALK WITH THEIR REVIEWERS
IN ADVANCE OF THE MEETING,
ALERTING THEM TO WHAT THE CHANGES ARE.
AND THIS IS GONNA BE A VERY FOCUSED EFFORT ON THEIR PART,
SO, YEAH.
YEAH.
- THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THESE CHANGES.
SO, YOU TALKED ABOUT HOW YOU HAVE MADE THE CHANGES
IN TERMS OF THE ASSISTANT PROFESSORS,
THE PROFESSORS AND BRINGING MORE JUNIOR FACULTY TO THE MIX.
DO YOU ALSO HAVE THESE GRAPHS FOR INSTITUTIONS?
LIKE HOW YOU HAVE BROUGHT IN THE LOW-RESOURCE INSTITUTIONS
INTO THE STUDY SECTION,
BECAUSE THAT'S ONE WAY OF ADDRESSING THE ADAPTATIONAL
BIAS.
SO DO YOU HAVE SIMILAR GRAPHS?
- I DON'T HAVE THOSE GRAPHS WITH ME TODAY,
I CAN GET THOSE DATA FOR YOU.
WE CAN LOOK AT WHAT THOSE CHANGES LOOK LIKE
OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS.
- AND HOW HAVE THEY CHANGED?
BUT ALSO HOW DO YOU ADDRESS MAINTAINING THAT RIGOR
IN THOSE STANDING STUDY SECTIONS
OR OTHER STUDY SECTIONS INCLUDING THOSE FACULTY?
- YEAH. - WHILE ALSO MAINTAINING
YOUR PROFESSOR AND ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR RATIO.
- YEAH.
YEAH, HOW DO WE MAINTAIN THE CHANGE?
WELL, WE MONITOR THEM.
WE'VE DEVELOPED A LOT OF TOOLS.
WE NOW HAVE A LOT OF INFORMATION
THAT WE CAN LOOK AT VERY QUICKLY.
SO,
SO, FOR EXAMPLE,
I CAN LOOK AT ALL OF THE 400 WHATEVER MEETINGS
THAT ARE COMING UP FOR THIS SUMMER,
AND I CAN GO THROUGH THEM
AND I CAN SEE THE ONES
THAT ARE LOW IN REPRESENTATION ALONG CERTAIN DIMENSIONS.
AND THOSE ARE PROVIDED TO OUR REVIEW BRANCH CHIEFS,
AND THE EXPECTATION IS THAT THEY CAN LOOK AT THOSE
AND THAT THEY CAN ENCOURAGE SROS AND HELP SROS,
YOU KNOW, WHEN NECESSARY
TO TRY TO GET THOSE THINGS FIXED.
SO, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE RIGHT,
IT NEEDS ONGOING ATTENTION.
ONE OF THE CHALLENGES IS THAT
IT REALLY IS MULTIDIMENSIONAL DIVERSITY.
AND, YOU KNOW, YOU ONLY HAVE SO MANY DEGREES OF FREEDOM,
YOU KNOW, IN A SMALL PANEL.
SO YOU DON'T SEE CHANGES ALWAYS GOING IN ONE DIRECTION
ALONG ONE OF THOSE DIMENSIONS.
BUT WE DO,
AS I SAY, WE DO MONITOR IT.
WE DO MAKE ONGOING EFFORTS
TO BRING NEW PEOPLE INTO THE PROCESS.
WE MAKE CONTINUING EFFORTS
TO GIVE SROS BETTER TOOLS
FOR IDENTIFYING NEW PEOPLE,
BRINGING IN NEW PEOPLE.
SO, IT'S A COMBINATION OF THOSE ONGOING EFFORTS.
YEAH, RIGHT IN THE BACK.
- [ESTELA] YES.
I REALLY THINK THAT IT'S CHANGING,
AND WE APPRECIATE THAT.
I HAVE ONE QUESTION ABOUT THE EARLY-CAREER REVIEWER PROGRAM.
YOU MENTIONED THAT THEY DON'T HAVE TO HAVE A GRANT.
THEY CAN BE EARLY CAREER,
IS THAT CORRECT?
- RIGHT, SO THE EARLY CAREER ACTUALLY CANNOT HAVE A GRANT.
- OKAY. - SO THESE ARE PEOPLE
IN HOPEFULLY A SHORT WINDOW OF TIME,
BUT THEY'VE APPLIED FOR FUNDING
AND THEY'VE GOTTEN A SUMMARY STATEMENT,
BUT THEY HAVE NOT BEEN FUNDED.
AND SO AT THAT POINT,
WE INVITE THEM TO SERVE ON A REVIEW PANEL.
AND THE RATIONALE FOR THIS IS THAT
IF THEY'VE SUBMITTED AN APPLICATION,
THEY'VE GOTTEN THAT LEVEL OF FAMILIARITY
WITH THE REVIEW PROCESS, SO.
AND THEN IT WOULD ALSO BE PRESUMABLY A USEFUL TIME
FOR THEM TO LEARN MORE
ABOUT HOW REVIEW PANELS ACTUALLY WORK,
WHAT GOES ON IN THOSE STUDY SECTIONS.
AND SO THAT'S THE GROUP THAT'S TARGETED.
- OKAY, SO IT'S BY INVITATION.
- NO, WELL, (CHUCKLES) IT'S BOTH.
I MEAN, WE DO INVITE PEOPLE,
BUT PEOPLE CAN APPLY.
IF YOU GO TO OUR WEBSITE,
THERE'S A PAGE FOR-
- OH, THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO KNOW,
YOU'RE DISSEMINATING THE PROGRAM.
- YEAH, YEAH, RIGHT,
THERE IS, YEAH, YEAH.
WE DO MAKE A LOT OF EFFORTS TO PUSH IT OUT,
AND IT IS ON OUR WEBSITE,
AND PEOPLE CAN APPLY DIRECTLY TO IT.
YOU DON'T NEED ANY PERMISSION
OR, YOU KNOW, INVITATION FROM US.
AND WE DO A MINIMAL LEVEL OF VETTING OF PEOPLE
JUST TO MAKE SURE THEY MEET BROAD REQUIREMENTS.
BUT YEAH, WE'RE VERY HAPPY TO HAVE PEOPLE APPLY.
- OKAY, THANK YOU. - YEAH,
- LET'S SEE, I THINK
IN THE GREEN THERE. - YES.
- THANK YOU, OMONIKE OLALEYE,
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR PRESENTATION
AND ALL THE GREAT WORK THAT YOU'RE LEADING WITH THIS CHANGE.
MY QUESTION IS,
I'M FROM TEXAS,
SO YOU KNOW HOW WE DO HAVE A LOT OF POLITICAL CHANGES,
LAWS BEING IN PLACE,
AND JUST NOT IN TEXAS,
SOME OTHER STATES AS WELL.
AND IF YOU COULD SHARE WITH US
WHAT MAYBE THE NIH LEADERSHIP IS DOING
IN TERMS OF HOW TO WORK WITH INSTITUTIONS NAVIGATING THIS.
I KNOW RIGHT NOW MOST INSTITUTIONS ARE WORKING
WITH THEIR GENERAL COUNSEL'S OFFICE,
BUT IT WOULD BE GREAT TO HEAR FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE
OR ANY OF THE LEADERS HERE,
LIKE, WHAT EXACTLY IS NIH DOING?
BECAUSE THIS IS A BIG THREAT TO SOME OF THE MISSIONS
YOU ACTUALLY HAVE BEEN PURSUING FOR YEARS.
THE SECOND QUESTION IS,
HOW HAS THIS,
OR HAS THIS STARTED TO IMPACT YOUR REVIEW?
AND NOW DO WE NEED TO ADD SOME MORE
TO YOUR TRAINING FOR THOSE REVIEWERS?
BECAUSE JUST THINKING,
OH, IF THIS APPLICATION IS COMING FROM TEXAS,
THEY CAN'T GET THIS DONE BECAUSE OF THE NEW CHANGES,
SO HOW ARE WE EDUCATING REVIEWERS
TO KNOW ABOUT THE EXEMPTIONS AND THINGS LIKE THAT
SO THAT THEY DON'T BRING THAT BIAS INTO THE REVIEW?
- YEAH, LET ME START WITH THE SECOND QUESTION
BECAUSE IN SOME WAYS IT'S EASIER.
WE TELL REVIEWERS,
YOU'RE NOT LAWYERS.
DON'T MAKE JUDGEMENTS ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT
THIS IS LEGALLY FEASIBLE.
ASSUME THAT IT IS,
ASSUME THAT THE APPLICANTS HAVE THOUGHT ABOUT THIS
AND HAVE IT WORKED OUT.
DON'T YOU BE DECIDING, YOU KNOW,
DON'T YOU TAKE THAT ON AND SAY,
OH, YOU KNOW,
LIKE YOU SAY, THAT'S IN TEXAS,
THEY CAN'T DO THAT.
WE VERY EXPLICITLY,
AND WE, YOU KNOW,
THAT COMES UP FROM TIME TO TIME,
AND WE HAVE TO EXPLICITLY TELL COMMITTEES,
"NO, THAT'S OUT OF BOUNDS,
JUST YOU FOCUS ON THE SCIENTIFIC MERIT,
YOU DON'T MAKE THOSE KIND OF JUDGEMENTS ABOUT THAT,
JUST DON'T."
SO THE BROADER QUESTION
ABOUT HOW THE NIH IS RESPONDING TO THOSE KIND OF QUESTIONS,
I DON'T KNOW IF I'M THE BEST PERSON (CHUCKLES)
TO ADDRESS THOSE KIND OF ISSUES.
IT'S REALLY CHALLENGING
AND OBVIOUSLY RAISES CONCERN FOR ALL OF US.
WE DON'T WANNA BE REINED IN,
WE DON'T WANT ANY OF OUR APPLICANTS TO BE REINED IN
BY THOSE KIND OF CONCERNS.
QUESTION HERE, YEAH.
- YEAH, PAUL MURPHY, UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY.
I'VE BEEN TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO ASK THIS,
AND I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE EASY WAY IS TO KEEP IT SHORT.
SO, WHAT I'M REALLY CURIOUS ABOUT
IS THERE'S THIS PILOT PROGRAM THAT THEY'RE RUNNING
FOR THE TRANSFORMATIVE RESEARCH GRANTS,
WHERE THEY'RE SEPARATING THE REVIEW
OF THE INVESTIGATOR IN THE INSTITUTION
FROM THE REVIEW OF THE BODY OF THE GRANT ITSELF.
ARE THERE ANY PLANS TO EXTEND THAT
TO OTHER GRANT PROGRAMS AS A PILOT TO SEE IF IT'S EFFECTIVE?
'CAUSE THE TRANSFORMATIVE ONE IS QUITE UNUSUAL AND SMALL.
- SO, SO YOU'RE COMPLETELY RIGHT,
AND JUST,
I'M GONNA MAKE YOUR QUESTION A LITTLE BIT LONGER. (CHUCKLES)
- [PAUL] WELL, I COULD'VE ASKED-
- YEAH, I KNOW YOU COULD'VE,
BUT (CHUCKLES) JUST IN THE INTEREST MAYBE
OF MAKING SURE EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS WHAT IT'S ABOUT,
SO, YOU KNOW,
SO ONE OF THE QUESTIONS WE GET SOMETIMES IS,
WHY DON'T YOU DO BLINDED REVIEW?
YOU KNOW, WHY DON'T YOU BLIND REVIEWERS
TO THE INSTITUTION AND INVESTIGATOR?
AND THE SHORT ANSWER TO THAT IS,
WELL, WE CAN'T BECAUSE IT WOULD BE ILLEGAL,
BECAUSE UNDER FEDERAL LAW,
WE HAVE TO CONSIDER THE INVESTIGATOR
AND THE ENVIRONMENT IN JUDGING SCIENTIFIC MERIT.
SO ONE APPROACH TO THAT
IS TO CONSIDER PARTIALLY BLINDED REVIEW,
AND, AS YOU SAY,
THERE HAVE BEEN A COUPLE OF EFFORTS
TO DO THIS ON A PILOT BASIS
WHERE ESSENTIALLY JUDGEMENTS
ABOUT THE OTHER CRITERIA ARE MADE
WHILE THE GROUPS ARE BLINDED
TO THE INVESTIGATOR AND THE INSTITUTION.
AND THEN AT THE VERY LAST STAGE,
THEY GET THAT INFORMATION.
SO THE TRANSFORMATIVE AWARDS ARE ONE PLACE
THAT THAT'S BEEN DONE.
THEY'VE RUN THIS FOR THREE YEARS NOW.
THEY'RE JUST WRAPPING UP AN EVALUATION OF THAT.
I HAVEN'T SEEN THE RESULTS YET.
AND I THINK, YOU KNOW,
I THINK THE LEVEL OF INTEREST
IN EXPANDING IT'S GONNA DEPEND PARTLY
ON WHAT WE SEE IN THAT EVALUATION.
- [DORIT] OKAY, WE HAVE TIME FOR ONE MORE QUESTION.
- [PAUL] SO, WITH ALL THESE CHANGES,
HOW WELL HAVE THEY BEEN RECEIVED
BY THOSE INSTITUTIONS THAT GET BUCKETS OF NIH MONEY?
(BRUCE CHUCKLES)
- WELL, I WILL SAY THAT,
SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE SIMPLIFIED REVIEW FRAMEWORK,
IT CHANGES THINGS SO THAT,
SO WE ASK REVIEWERS TO SCORE THREE FACTORS.
ONE IS IMPORTANCE OF THE SCIENCE,
THE SECOND IS THE RIGOR AND FEASIBILITY,
AND THE THIRD IS THE INVESTIGATOR,
AND THAT'S THE ONE THAT'S SCORED ON THE,
YOU KNOW, ADEQUATE OR NOT.
WE GET A FAIR NUMBER OF QUESTIONS,
OR, SHOULD I SAY,
QUESTIONING THE WISDOM OF THAT
FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE GENERALLY,
YOU KNOW, HIGHLY ESTABLISHED AND SENIOR,
WHO THINK THAT THAT'S THE MOST IMPORTANT THING
THAT WE OUGHT TO BE CONSIDERING.
SO WE DO HEAR ABOUT IT,
BUT THAT'S THE WAY WE'RE GONNA DO IT.
- THANK YOU VERY MUCH, BRUCE. (ATTENDEES CLAPPING)
OKAY, SO WE'RE GETTING TOWARDS THE END OF THE DAY,
IT'S BEEN A LONG DAY.
YOU'VE FIGURED OUT HOW TO APPLY FOR AWARDS,
YOU'VE FIGURED OUT ACTUALLY HOW TO GET SOME AWARDS,
BUT THEN YOU HAVE TO MANAGE THEM.
AND FOR THAT, WE'RE BRINGING THE EXPERT AT NIH
TO TELL US A LITTLE BIT ABOUT HOW TO MANAGE AWARDS.
AND I'M HANDING THIS OVER TO MICHELLE BULLS,
THE DIRECTOR OF THE,
AND I'M GONNA GET THIS WRONG,
OFFICE OF POLICY FOR EXTRAMURAL RESEARCH ADMINISTRATION.
- [MICHELLE] YAY!
- OH, I GOT IT RIGHT.
TO TELL US ALL ABOUT HOW TO OPTIMIZE AWARD MANAGEMENT.
- HELLO, EVERYONE.
I HOPE YOU ALL ARE ENJOYING THE PRESENTATIONS,
LEARNING LOTS.
I'M GONNA STEAL A PAGE FROM BRUCE'S PRESENTATION,
HIS INTRODUCTORY, BY SAYING,
I DO NOT COME
TO GIVE YOU PLAIN JANE THINGS THAT YOU ALREADY KNOW.
SO I'M GONNA KINDA SPICE IT UP A LITTLE BIT,
JUST A LITTLE BIT,
SO THAT YOU GUYS CAN TAKE AWAY SOME REALLY CRITICAL AREAS
WITHIN THE PRESENTATION.
AND SO WHAT WE'LL TALK ABOUT IS THE FUNDING.
SO, IS THIS MINE?
(CHUCKLES) WHAT?
WAIT.
OKAY. ALL RIGHT, YES.
ALL RIGHT, SO WHAT WE'RE GONNA TALK ABOUT
IS HOW THE FUND,
HOW DOES NIH FUND RESEARCH?
AND WE HAVE THE GRANTS, OF COURSE,
YOU KNOW THAT,
YOU KNOW COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS, CONTRACTS,
AND WE'VE INTRODUCED ANOTHER MECHANISM,
WHICH ARE YOUR OTHER TRANSACTIONS.
I'M NOT GONNA TALK ABOUT THAT TODAY,
BUT I HOPE I CAN GET YOU TO COME BACK
AND HEAR ABOUT IT A LITTLE BIT.
SO FOR THE FUNDING INSTRUMENT TYPES,
GRANTS ARE GRANT IN AID.
AND SO, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?
THAT MEANS THAT WE ARE PARTNERING
WITH OUR RESEARCH RECIPIENTS
TO PROVIDE FUNDING TO SUPPORT RESEARCH
AND PRIORITIES.
AND SO A GRANT IN AID MEANS
THAT YOU DON'T HAVE TO REPAY THE MONEY,
'CAUSE IT'S NOT A LOAN.
BUT WE DO EXPECT FOR YOU
TO PROVIDE US WITH STEWARDSHIP,
ACCOUNTABILITY,
AND OUTLINE FOR US
FROM YOUR RESEARCH PERFORMANCE PROGRESS REPORTS
HOW YOU'RE MANAGING YOUR PROJECT.
AND THEN, ONCE YOU IDENTIFY
HOW YOU'RE SCIENTIFICALLY COMING ALONG,
THEN WE WANNA HEAR ABOUT HOW YOU'RE MANAGING THE FUNDS,
BECAUSE THEY GO HAND IN HAND.
AND SO YOU SUBMIT YOUR FEDERAL FINANCIAL REPORT.
AND SO THAT'S JUST AN OPPORTUNITY FOR YOU GUYS
TO RECOGNIZE THAT WHILE WE PROVIDE GRANTS,
THEY ARE A GRANT IN AID,
AND WE DO NOT, YOU KNOW, EXPECT ANYTHING.
IT'S NOT A GIFT, IT'S NOT A LOAN,
BUT WE DO HAVE AN EXPECTATION
THAT YOU ALL GIVE US A PROGRESS REPORT AND FINANCIALS.
A COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT IS A GRANT,
BUT THERE'S SUBSTANTIAL PROGRAMMATIC INVOLVEMENT.
AND WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?
THAT MEANS THAT THERE ARE RESPONSIBILITIES
ON BEHALF OF THE NIH STAFF.
YOU HAVE YOUR PROJECT COORDINATOR
OR YOUR PROJECT SCIENTIST,
WHO KINDA MANAGES THE STEERING COMMITTEE
AND THAT KINDA THING.
YOU HAVE YOUR PROGRAM OFFICIAL,
WHO INTERACTS WITH THE PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
AND OVERSEES THE SCIENTIFIC ASPECT OF THE PROJECT.
AND THEN YOU HAVE STEERING COMMITTEES
AND OTHER SUCH LIKE THINGS.
AND SO ICS HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY
TO REALLY IDENTIFY AND LAY OUT IN THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS
AND IN THE NOTICES OF FUNDING OPPORTUNITY
WHAT THOSE RESPONSIBILITIES LOOK LIKE,
WHAT THOSE EXPECTATIONS ARE.
AND THEY HIGHLIGHT THE JOINT RESPONSIBILITIES AS WELL,
SO YOU DON'T JUST GET TO SEE WHAT WE EXPECT
OR WHAT WE'RE GONNA BE DOING
AS HAVING THAT SUBSTANTIAL PROGRAMMATIC INVOLVEMENT.
YOU'LL ALSO SEE WHAT WE EXPECT FROM THE RECIPIENT COMMUNITY.
AND TYPICALLY WHEN YOU LOOK IN OUR NOFOS,
THEY ARE WHAT WE CALL OUR U MECHANISMS.
SO THAT'S THE COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT MECHANISM
IS THE U AWARD.
AND THEN A CONTRACT, OF COURSE,
IS A DIRECT BENEFIT
TO THE GOVERNMENT PURCHASING SERVICES AND GOODS,
AND WE BENEFIT FROM THAT.
SO THE AWARD HAS BEEN MADE,
WHAT'S NEXT?
SO, A LOT OF TIMES,
WE ALWAYS HEAR IN OUR GRANTS POLICY INBOX,
WE HEAR FROM OUR PROGRAM OFFICIALS, SAYING,
THE PI WANTS TO KNOW WHEN THEY'RE GONNA GET THEIR AWARD.
THIS IS THEIR AWARD,
AND THEY WANNA KNOW WHEN THEY'RE GONNA GET IT.
AND WE OFTENTIMES HAVE TO REMIND FOLKS
THAT NIH IS IN A LEGAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE RECIPIENT,
NOT WITH THE PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR.
SO THE AWARDS ARE MADE TO THE RECIPIENT
AND NOT TO THE PI.
THE AUTHORIZED ORGANIZATIONAL REPRESENTATIVE
IS THE DESIGNATED CONTACT PERSON
OR PEOPLE FOR NIH.
SO TYPICALLY WHEN THERE ARE PRIOR APPROVAL REQUESTS,
THERE ARE CARRYOVER REQUESTS
AND DIFFERENT KINDS OF ACTIVITIES
THAT GO BACK AND FORTH BETWEEN THE RECIPIENT AND NIH,
THE POINT OF CONTACT REALLY SHOULD BE
THE AUTHORIZED ORGANIZATIONAL REPRESENTATIVE.
AND TYPICALLY, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE TRY TO DO
IS SAY THAT THIS IS YOUR BUSINESS OFFICIAL.
AND SO,
MOST OFTEN WE WANNA MAKE SURE
THAT THEY UNDERSTAND THE RULES,
THE REGULATIONS,
AND THE NIH GRANTS POLICY STATEMENT.
WE ALSO WANNA MAKE SURE
THAT THERE'S PROPER CONDUCT UNDER THE AWARD,
BECAUSE THE PI, OF COURSE,
SHOULD NOT BE DIRECTLY INTERACTING
AND MAKING FISCAL DECISIONS.
THEY HAVE THAT SCIENTIFIC OVERSIGHT,
AND THAT'S KIND OF THE AREA
WHERE WE WANT TO KEEP THEM IN THE DAY-TO-DAY MANAGEMENT
OF THE PROJECT.
AND SO,
DIRECT COSTS ARE COSTS
THAT ARE SPECIFICALLY CHARGED
AND BENEFIT THE PROJECTS,
BACK UP.
THE DIRECT COSTS ARE COSTS THAT ARE CHARGED DIRECTLY
TO THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT.
AND THEN IT'S DIRECTLY ASSIGNED
TO THAT PARTICULAR PROJECT.
AND IT HAS A HIGH DEGREE OF ACCURACY
THAT THERE IS NOT ANYTHING IN THAT COST
THAT WOULD NOT BE READILY ASSIGNED TO THAT PROJECT.
AND SO WE TALK ABOUT SALARIES,
TRAVEL, EQUIPMENT,
AND SUPPLIES THAT DIRECTLY SUPPORT THE PROJECT,
BECAUSE WE WILL FIND ON THE OTHER SLIDE
THAT THERE ARE COSTS THAT ARE IN THE SUPPLY CATEGORY
THAT COULD BE ASSIGNED TO AN INDIRECT COST, RIGHT?
AND SO CHARGING THE GRANT WITH INDIRECT COSTS,
THAT'S WHERE YOU HAVE YOUR FACILITIES
AND ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS.
AND SO I TALKED A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE FACT
THAT IT'S LIKE YOUR LIGHTS AND YOUR TELEPHONE AND MAILING
AND THAT KINDA THING, YOUR UTILITIES.
AND YOU CAN CHARGE OFFICE SUPPLIES
TO THE GRANT INDIRECTLY AND BE REIMBURSED.
SO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE OFTEN GET IS,
"NIH IS NOT GIVING US THE RIGHT INDIRECT COST RATE.
OUR COSTS ARE NOT RIGHT.
AND WE HAVE APPLIED FOR AN INDIRECT COST,
AND WE JUST DON'T BELIEVE THAT THE RATE IS ACCURATE."
WELL, GUESS WHAT?
NIH DOES NOT REVIEW NOR APPROVE YOUR INDIRECT COSTS.
THAT COMES FROM THE DIVISION OF COST ALLOCATION AT HHS,
WHO HAVE EXPERTS THAT ARE ASSIGNED
TO REVIEW COST ALLOCATION PLANS.
NIH IS REQUIRED, THOUGH,
THAT ONCE THOSE RATES ARE ESTABLISHED,
WE HAVE TO ABIDE BY THEM,
AND THAT'S A PART OF OUR REGULATIONS.
AND SO FOR THOSE RATES,
FOR THOSE RECIPIENTS THAT DON'T HAVE A INDIRECT COST RATE,
WE TYPICALLY ALLOW THEM TO USE A DE MINIMIS RATE,
AND THAT WAS AT ONE POINT 10%,
BUT EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 1,
IT WILL BECOME 15%.
AND THEN WE HAVE OUR TRAINING GRANTS
THAT ARE CHARGED AT 8%.
AND WE HAVE OUR FOREIGN INSTITUTIONS
THAT CHARGE 8% MODIFIED TOTAL DIRECT COSTS
FOR THE COST OF COMPLIANCE.
AND WE'VE OFTEN BEEN ASKED, YOU KNOW,
WILL NIH BE INCREASING THE, YOU KNOW, TRAINING GRANTS
AND THE FOREIGN GRANT RATE TO THE DE MINIMIS,
AND AT THIS TIME,
WE'RE NOT GONNA BE DOING THAT.
THIS IS SOMETHING THAT IS HANDLED TYPICALLY
AT THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, OMB LEVEL.
AND WHAT WE ARE GONNA TRY TO DO
IS TRY TO WORK WITH THEM OVER TIME
TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THERE'S SOME WIGGLE ROOM
FOR TRAINING GRANTS.
AND THE FOREIGN GRANTS WILL LIKELY STAY AT THE 8%,
BUT THIS IS ON THE TABLE,
WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT IT.
SO, WHAT MAKES A COST ALLOWABLE?
FIRST OFF, EVERYBODY SAYS,
"WELL, I LOOKED IN THE COST PRINCIPLES IN 2 CFR 200,
AND I DON'T SEE THE PARTICULAR COST THAT I'M LOOKING FOR."
I OFTEN ENCOURAGE FOLKS TO PAY ATTENTION
TO YOUR NOTICE OF FUNDING OPPORTUNITY ANNOUNCEMENT.
AND THE REASON WHY IS BECAUSE
NOT EVERY COST IS GOING TO BE OUTLINED
IN THOSE COST PRINCIPLES.
AND THERE ARE COSTS THAT CAN BE CHARGED,
ESPECIALLY WHEN IT'S,
YOU KNOW, DEPENDING ON THE RESEARCH,
YOU KNOW, WE HAVE TO ALLOW FOR DIFFERENT KINDS OF COSTS.
AND THERE MAY BE COSTS IN THE COST PRINCIPLES
THAT ARE NOT ALLOWABLE BY THE COST PRINCIPLES
BUT MAY BE ALLOWABLE IN THE NOFO.
AND IT JUST DEPENDS ON WHAT THAT PROJECT IS BASED ON
AND WHAT THOSE COSTS ARE.
THE MAIN THING THAT I THINK WE HAVE TO REMEMBER
IS THAT WE HAVE TO DETERMINE THE FOUR TESTS
TO DETERMINE ALLOWABILITY.
IS THE COST REASONABLE?
I MEAN, ARE YOU OVERCHARGING, UNDERCHARGING
FOR SPECIFIC COSTS?
IS IT ALLOCABLE?
CAN YOU, YOU KNOW, ASSIGN IT TO A COST CATEGORY
TO THAT PARTICULAR PROJECT?
ARE YOU CONSISTENTLY APPLYING THE COST
REGARDLESS OF THE SOURCE OF FUNDS?
IF YOU WERE GETTING A GRANT FROM NSF,
CHARGING A CERTAIN COST FOR SALARIES,
WOULD YOU CHARGE NIH THE SAME THING?
CONSISTENCY.
AND DOES IT CONFORM TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS
OF THE AWARD AND TO THE NIH GRANTS POLICY STATEMENT,
WHICH IS THE STANDARD TERM AND CONDITION OF THE AWARD?
THE MAIN THING THAT I THINK WE WALK AWAY WITH THIS SLIDE
IS TO REMIND FOLKS
THAT IT IS THE RECIPIENT'S RESPONSIBILITY
TO MAKE SURE THAT THOSE COSTS ARE TREATED
USING THE FOUR TESTS TO DETERMINE THE ALLOWABILITY.
IF NIH IDENTIFIES NON-COMPLIANCE,
OF COURSE WE WOULD HAVE TO MOVE TOWARD REMEDIES
FOR NON-COMPLIANCE
AS WELL AS MAYBE ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS,
BUT WE DON'T WANNA EVER GET TO THAT POINT.
WE WANNA BE ABLE TO WORK WITH YOU
AND TO WORK WITH THE INSTITUTIONS
TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT THOSE COSTS ARE
AND WHETHER THEY MEET THE FOUR TESTS.
AND IF THERE'S EVER A QUESTION,
ALWAYS REACH OUT TO YOUR GRANTS MANAGEMENT OFFICIAL,
WHO WILL BE ABLE TO HELP YOU,
AND THEY ARE IDENTIFIED IN THE NOTICE OF AWARD.
SO, I'M GONNA TELL YOU
THAT THE NIH GRANTS POLICY STATEMENT IS OUR BIBLE.
IT'S YOURS.
AND THE REASON WHY
IS BECAUSE EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT THAT AWARD
AND ABOUT WHAT'S ALLOWABLE
AND ABOUT NOT GETTING INTO NON-COMPLIANCE
IS GONNA BE IN THE GRANTS POLICY STATEMENT.
AND WE ACTUALLY UPDATE THE POLICY STATEMENT ANNUALLY.
AND EVER SINCE THE BUDGETS STARTED
BEING APPROVED A LITTLE LATER,
YOU MIGHT SEE WE USED TO DO IT IN OCTOBER.
AS THE BUDGETS (CHUCKLES) HAVE NOT BEEN APPROVED ON TIME,
YOU MIGHT SEE 'EM IN APRIL OR MAY THIS TIME.
AND SO I JUST WANNA REALLY ENCOURAGE YOU GUYS
TO PAY ATTENTION TO THE GRANTS POLICY STATEMENT
AND MAKE SURE THAT WHATEVER QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE,
YOU JUST REFER TO THAT.
AND IF YOU CAN'T GET YOUR QUESTION ANSWERED THERE,
THEN, AGAIN, CONTACT YOUR GRANTS MANAGEMENT OFFICIAL
OR FEEL FREE TO CALL OR EMAIL THE GRANTS POLICY OFFICE.
AND I WILL TAKE QUESTIONS.
- [DORIT] THANKS, MICHELLE. QUESTIONS?
- (CHUCKLES) I HAVE A QUESTION,
I ALWAYS HAVE A QUESTION.
SO, ONE OF THE THINGS
THAT WE HAVE A CHALLENGE WITH IS OUR COMPLIANCE,
OUR SPONSORED PROGRAMS AND COMPLIANCE
IS COMPLETELY SEPARATE PART OF THE UNIVERSITY FROM FINANCE.
- [MICHELLE] MM, MM-HMM.
- WE HAVE NO SUPERVISORY ABILITY OVER THEM AT ALL,
AND VICE VERSA.
AND IT'S REALLY BEEN A CHALLENGE,
I'M ON THE OSP SIDE, IT'S LIKE,
"THEY'RE THE PROBLEM!"
- RIGHT, RIGHT. (MELISSA LAUGHS)
- BUT THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF TURNOVER,
AND IT'S BEEN REALLY DIFFICULT WHEN EVERYTHING COMES TO OSP
AND THE PROBLEMS ARE ON THE FINANCE SIDE.
SO IS THERE SOME WAY
THAT YOU GUYS COULD CONSIDER MOVING TO HAVING TWO AORS
OR HAVING A DIVISION BETWEEN THE FINANCIAL CONTACT
AND THE KIND OF COMPLIANCE CONTACT?
- SO- (MIC RUMBLING)
- (CHUCKLES) SORRY.
- OOH, THAT WAS A DIFFERENT VOICE. (LAUGHS)
SO, THAT WOULD BE HARD.
NIH CANNOT, YOU KNOW,
REALLY DICTATE THE ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE.
BUT WHAT I WOULD ENCOURAGE IS THAT
YOU COULD HAVE A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT SIGNING OFFICIALS
WHERE WHEN YOU SUBMIT THE APPLICATION
OR WHEN YOU'RE RESPONDING TO THE RPPR OR THE FFR,
YEAH, FFR,
THAT YOU WORK TOGETHER THROUGH THIS NEUTRAL PERSON
TO MAKE SURE THAT THINGS ARE MAPPING.
WE HEAR THIS QUITE OFTEN, QUITE OFTEN,
AND IT REALLY BECAME AN ISSUE
WHEN WE HAD THE FEDERAL CASH TRANSACTION REPORTS
AND WE WERE HAVING FOLKS SUBMIT
THE FEDERAL FINANCIAL REPORTS,
AND THE ACCOUNTING OFFICE
AND THE FINANCE OFFICE WERE NOT TALKING,
AND SO THINGS WERE QUITE OFF. BUT WHAT WE OFTEN TRY TO DO
IS JUST REALLY WORK WITH EACH SIDE
TO FIGURE OUT HOW WE CAN MAINTAIN COMPLIANCE,
BUT IT'S REALLY HARD FOR NIH TO REACH IN THAT WAY.
- I HAVE A QUESTION
WHICH YOU MAY NOT BE ABLE TO ANSWER RIGHT NOW,
BUT MAYBE YOU CAN PROVIDE RESOURCES.
IF YOU'RE FROM A LOWER-RESOURCE INSTITUTION,
HOW DO YOU FIND TRAINING
FOR PEOPLE THAT YOU WANNA HIRE
FOR THE OFFICE OF SPONSORED PROGRAMS
OR TO DO GRANTS COMPLIANCE?
IS THERE A TRAINING IN THIS?
- SO, WE DO HAVE OUR ANNUAL TRAININGS,
AND WE HAVE NCURA
I'M SURE YOU PROBABLY KNOW ABOUT THAT, SRA,
AND THEN THE FEDERAL DEMONSTRATION PARTNERSHIP.
AND I THINK FOR US,
THAT'S WHERE WE REALLY HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SIT DOWN
AND TALK THROUGH SOME OF THE ISSUES.
AND ESPECIALLY AT FDP,
BECAUSE WE HAVE WORKING GROUPS
WHERE WE HAVE MANY OF OUR RESEARCH ADMINISTRATORS COME,
SIT, LISTEN, AND PARTICIPATE IN THOSE DISCUSSIONS
AND RAISE THE QUESTIONS THAT YOU'RE RAISING.
AND WE DO TRAIN IN THOSE WORKING GROUPS AS WELL.
WE HAVE,
FDP IS THE FEDERAL SIDE OF THE PARTNERSHIP.
AND SO WHAT THEY DO IS SUBMIT DIFFERENT TOPICS,
LIKE WE'RE GONNA BE DOING A TOPIC ON AUDITS,
AND SO WE'LL BE TALKING ABOUT THAT AT THE FDP NEXT WEEK
AND TRAINING ON HOW YOU CAN IDENTIFY
WHERE THOSE COST COMPLIANCE ISSUES ARE
OR ANY KIND OF COMPLIANCE ISSUE
AND HOW WE CAN WORK TOGETHER TO BRIDGE THAT GAP.
AND A LARGE PART OF WHAT WE WANNA MAKE SURE OF
WITH THE AUDITS AND THAT KIND OF THING
IS THAT WE WANNA MAKE SURE
THAT IF YOU ALL ARE FACING AN AUDIT FINDING,
WE'RE GONNA BE FACING IT AS WELL.
SO IT'S THOSE PARTNERSHIPS,
SO WE DO TRAIN THAT WAY.
- [DORIT] OKAY, WE'LL TRY AND ADD SOME LINKS TO NCURA, SRA,
AND FDP'S RESOURCE DOCUMENT. - YEAH.
YES. - I'LL REACH OUT TO YOU,
AND WE'LL DO THAT. - YEAH.
- [DORIT] ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?
- THEY'RE TIRED.
- [DORIT] (LAUGHS) I'M TIRED.
- (LAUGHS) THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR HAVING ME.
(ATTENDEES CLAPPING)
- OKAY, THANKS, MICHELLE.
THANK YOU ALL FOR PAYING LOTS OF ATTENTION TODAY,
AND I'D SPECIFICALLY LIKE TO THANK THE FOLKS
WHO HAVE BEEN JOINING US ON ZOOM ALL DAY,
AND I HOPE YOU'VE FOUND THE INFORMATION USEFUL.