Uncharacteristically Bad Advice From NIAID »« Catte Hilariousity

Studying Study Sections

If you are not aware of the trends of expertise on the various study sections that could conceivably be a relevant home for your grant, haven’t studied the grant titles/PIs/abstracts that have been funded after review in those study sections, are not involved in ongoing discussions with SROs about this issue and to provide input concerning appropriate areas for necessary bolstering with ad hoc members, and are not writing your grants in a very targeted fashion to deal with the reality on the ground in the study section you have decided to have your grant assigned to, then you are fuckeing uppe, bigge tyme.

Comments

  1. says

    …and are not checking with RePORTER to find out what sorts of grants have been reviewed in that section and given a fundable score….

    /edit

  2. 5th yr Grad student says

    My boss only just explained to me the purpose of the study section this week, and I guess I never appreciated that they might be a semi-regular group. Where do you find out who they are and what they’ve funded in the past?

  3. anon says

    This is extremely difficult if you work on a cross-disciplinary topic. I have tried a number of study sections, and there is always at least one fucknut who doesn’t know what the fuck he’s talking about, but enough to prevent the application from being discussed. Or discussed, but not well scored. NSF and other agencies do not disclose the names of people on the review panel. I still think the bottom line is that you need to have someone who knows you on the study section. NIH is for clubmembers only.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>