I hate those bean counters. I need to purchase a piece of equipment, consistent with other equipment already in the lab. Need in these sense, the equip we have does not work with one set of experiments. Need in the sense, if we are going to make a major part of aim 2, we need this stuff.
I got a quote from company (thank you company) that provided original (wonderful) equipment. I wrote the justification to grants accounting in October. OCTOBER. In Oct, grants accounting said "you need NIH permission to move money". I said: no, I don't. I found chapter and verse why I didn't (in short, it is less than $25K, it doesn't change the scope of the work). Grants accounting, in NOVEMBER said "sure, fine". Quote expired. Got new quote. Put it in. Need this for experiments that start mid -Jan. TODAY. To-fucking-Day, Grants accounting said "nope, we were wrong, you do need permission, from NIH and a statement from the company that no one else makes this". Why ? Because there is no "equipment" line in my budget. So to add the fucking budget line needs approval.
And the company, the very small, yet very good company, is off at a meeting. No one to write my statement. NIH is, well, NIH. I am not sure when they will get back to me.
Take home lessons: Know the rules. Know the NIH rules that pertain to you. And know where to find chapter and verse when you need it. Do not believe grants accounting. I know I am smarter than them, and that I've been doing grants longer than them. Also: I did not put equipment in this proposal, because I didn't think I needed any. Now, I learn that one always wants to put an equipment budget line in, so that you can use it later. There are other problems with that. But right now, I've got too many fires to put out to detail it for you. But I will.
Ok, Ok, I am letting go of what pissed me off from this article.
Here is another thing about which I have written before.
Talk to the Program Officer: Programme officers, also called programme directors, are NIH employees who shepherd grant applications through the system, from submission to award. Their role includes advising investigators by e-mail and on the phone — but not every scientist takes full advantage of this opportunity.
When I wrote about this in the past, or when DM wrote about this or datahound wrote about this (here and here and here and lots of other places, too), we got comments back that said: well, yes, but they never answered my phone call or email.
So firstly, the ways to do this. No one likes cold calls, ie, out of the blue from people they don't know. PO's are no exception. They usually have an admin person screening for them. A better strategy (and I have asked PO's about this) is to send an email. Yes, you are the generation that doesn't do email. But the PO is. Send a polite email. Use an appropriate subject line that includes the 5 word version of your proposal. "Discuss potential proposal on Bunny Hopping". Keep the email short:
I would like to discuss a proposal I am developing on Bunny Hopping. [insert one sentence summary of the proposal here]. I believe that it might fall within your portfolio. Is there a good time when we could discuss this on the phone?
If you have an abstract or SA developed, or even a para summary, you can attach it or paste it below. But if you make the PO wade through the whole summary before getting to "can we talk?", they may never make it there.
This of course assumes that you have bothered to read what is in the PO's portfolio. You can find this on the web. The NIH website has lots. Go to the IC you think is relevant. Go to the "extramural page". or just search on "program officers". It is absolutely fine to contact multiple PO's. They will not perceive you as cheating on them.
Now, if that doesn't get a response, try again in a couple of days to a week. Remember these guys are human beings. They have families and get to take vacations, and may even have more work than you do. Sometimes it takes a while.
If after multiple tries, they don't get back. Try another PO. Try the head of the PO's. They may have 40 of these emails, and it could be that yours is the least interesting to them. PO's also run the range of human beings: some are helpful, some take an interest and some are jerks. I've met all kinds in my life.
Finally, don't ever text a PO. Mostly their contacts are land lines, so it most likely won't work. But, texting is how their kids talk to them, not their PI's.
There is a new piece up in Nature's N&V about getting funded. I'm irritated by the figure, which breaks the old/young distribution in a way that makes their point, but is not defensible on data analysis grounds (let's not even talk about breaking continuous distributions into discreet categories).
But there are some nice little gems tucked into the article.
Taking a modular budget, especially in light of the yearly budget-slimming cuts that the NIH applies to all awards, might hurt a young lab’s research. And the data suggest that it won’t improve the chances of winning a grant.
One of the things to keep in mind is that the budget, modular or not, is a minor, very minor part of the review, and technically not something that gets included in the scoring.
Separate out the scope of the work from the budget requested to do the work. Scope is a legitimate criterion: can the PI do the work proposed? Is it reasonable for the time requested? One of the big flaws I see is that a young PI is proposing to do a 30 year study, and not a 5 year one. But the money? Unless you are asking for Millions a year and a 20M$ overall budget, don't sweat this. Ask for what you need to do the research.
The past is finished. There is nothing to be gained by going over it. Whatever it gave us in the experiences it brought us was something we had to know. ― Rebecca Beard
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it -George Santayana
Less nonsensical, but still.
Things are not black and white or green and blue. Forgetting the past and not knowing history opens one up to manipulation by others (and lots of current examples of that - starting with "bringing Christmas back to us"). But dwelling in the past is to deny the life we live now.
Happy New Year to One and All
There's a meme going round twitter, to list the three things (most important) that you accomplished.
quote this tweet with your top 3 personal accomplishments of 2017 (you decide what counts)
— Adam J. Kurtz (@adamjk) December 24, 2017
Doc Becca owned it:
1. Was denied tenure
2. Said “I disagree.”
3. Was awarded tenure. https://t.co/PtTdO6KB1R
— Dr Becca, PhD (@doc_becca) December 25, 2017
I have tried several times to answer this. The trouble is my distribution of accomplishments is very flat, or rather, like the distribution of outcomes when you roll a die: everything is 1/6. I think of these three, and then of those three, and then these other three.
Which leads me to this thought:
I didn't have a major event like Dr. Becca. I had lots and lots of little and small things, none of which stick out as One of The Most Important Personal Accomplishments.
So what are my small deeds? I gave away more than 10% of my income (if you need a nudge: Donor's Choose). I listened, without judging, to all sorts of people: my trainees, the folks who work in my lab, my friends, my step-ish kids, my family. I dealt with problems large and small in my lab, and made sure that even when things were rough, people felt that they were heard and problems were equitably solved. I was kind to people who were not kind to me. I did some good science, and got some good things published. I made life better for others, without their knowing it was me doing it. I stepped up when someone needed to, but did not fail to take care of myself. I loved, and got love back. None of it spectacular, or reaching the level of yes, these three points on the distribution stand out. In short, I lived.
I received the following today (and they didn't even call me "dear"). Before you do anything, talk to your grants office. Remember, you do not submit proposals, your University does. You are not awarded the grant. Your University is. Do not go down a pathway that you discover, on Feb 1 for Feb 5 submission is not what your University permits.
NIH grant applicants: Grants.gov downloadable forms submission option retiring Dec. 31
NIH Grant Applicant,
On December 31, 2017 Grants.gov will no longer allow grant applicants to download an entire application form package as a single PDF for offline data entry and later submission.
Since you were involved in a grant application submitted using downloadable forms in 2017, we wanted to provide a final reminder to switch to one of the following submission options for 2018 submissions:
1. NIH’s ASSIST (learn more)
2. Institutional system-to-system solution (if your institution has one)
Our submission options page can help you compare features and considerations for each option. Ultimately your office of sponsored research or other group responsible for grant application submissions will decide which option is the best fit for you and your organization.
If there is no business reason to choose one option over another, give NIH’s ASSIST a try. It’s a user-friendly, online solution optimized for NIH applications.
Although Grants.gov will stop presenting their legacy downloadable forms package as an option at the end of this year, Grants.gov and NIH systems will continue to process previously downloaded application packages through March 2018. If you plan to submit a downloadeded application package after December 31, 2017, you might want to consider downloading an extra copy of the forms package for the opportunity before Dec 31 just in case you run into a technical difficulty with the original.
Holdo Rules. This post gets it, close to exactly. So, no spoilers (here, but yes at the link), but she's great and has purple hair.
I did not go home and clean house last night. I did not do laundry or work on that manuscript or read the postdoc's revisions to the neverending paper. I went to see The Last Jedi.
A movie with grownups. A movie with older people being heroes and not just slipping into the haze of dementia. A movie that is not just about young people doing things, allegedly in real life, that are well beyond rationality.
(Small claim to fame: I saw the first one, which in the day was just called "Star Wars", in the theater, the day it opened. The theater was half empty and only filled with the college sci-fi nerds like me. It didn't catch on for a week or so. Also saw ESB and RoJ on opening days. That was much harder).
I want to be Holdo when I grow up.
Okay, this is a thing. I've not done this before, but since IBAM is doing it, so shall I. It's the 12 month review of blog posts. It's the first line and a link to the whole post of the first thing from each month.
December: No smoking almost everywhere.
November: Medical School funding is one part of the problem that is driving the issues with career pathways, also known as the too many mouths at the trough problem.
October: I went to NYU to give a talk.
September: One of the hardest things to learn is how one’s effort translates into output.
July: I am sorry, but I am actually doing science!
June: Sometimes the current incarnations of culture wars spills over into the NIH grantsmanship (grantspersonship?) arena.
May: Power often corrupts and absolute power often corrupts absolutely, but the greatest corruption of all comes from withholding power, which grants victory to tyrants. -- Shlomo Riskin
April: When I was at MRU, I lived near the hospital and walked to work.
March: First, a word about exhaustion.
February: Wally wrote: (edited a bit for space, but go read the whole thing) I love being a postdoc – ... we don’t always have choices as to where we live.... Further, some of us belong to minority groups and living in some places in the US (where costs are often far cheaper) is just not particularly safe.
January: This post is my attempt to reduce my grumpiness index.
Balance or tension. On one side is understanding where one is and what one can do. There are extremes: I cannot fly but I can walk across the street. On the other side is the challenge to do more and not accept those limits: I will make that audacious pitch to the potential donor and explain why this work is worthy.
I may want to be tall and strong and have different features. And maybe in some science fiction future that will be possible. But right now, I'm old and short and have nose my genetics gave me. I can want to change those things, and with surgery and lifting weights and enough money, I could change them, some. But I won't ever have the physique of Venus or Serena. And I won't be 30 years younger. To be content with the way I look means more energy for other things, means a happiness with life that I value. But looks is not where the tension has meaning in one's life. It's about what one choses to do.
The other side is, in our culture, the myth of the striver, the outsider, the challenger. The person who doesn't accept and goes on to Change Things in A Big Way. This goes back to the LeGuin story of Omelas, that I touched on here. If you've not read it, do. It's challenging. Sometimes the Changer isn't big and strong and noble, just someone who knows right from wrong. We all take a little of that person with us when we do science. It's part and parcel of the process. We don't do the science that was done 10 years ago. We have new things we want to find and discover. [Although see this on the myth of science as "the miracle machine". ]
So limitations or exploding them. Sometimes those limitations get in the way of doing what we want or even what we know we can do. Imposter syndrome travels this subway line. What is a real limitation, and what is the cultural readout we've internalized? What is wanting to fly?
I think about these tensions. I'd like to say "everyday" but most of the time I am probably just moving forward with the tasks at hand. But, everyday, or maybe not quite everyday, I think about these tensions. There is a progression with age, but still, I want to Do The Big Thing in my science. And I am acutely aware of my limitations, my trainees' limitations. I don't want them to get lost trying to fly. But I don't want them to be stuck thinking that they can't, when they can, and so much more.