Showing posts with label Postdoc funding. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Postdoc funding. Show all posts

Monday, January 7, 2013

NIH proposes critical initiatives to sustain future of U.S. biomedical research



NIH proposes critical initiatives to sustain future of U.S. biomedical research

This includes enhancing training of postdoctoral researchers, exploring increased support for training mechanisms designed to accelerate the development of independent research careers such as the NIH Pathway to Independence Awards (K99/R00), increase the emphasis on ongoing assessments of the biomedical research workforce, including a proposed follow-up study on clinician scientists, as well as to identify and track more comprehensively all graduate students and postdoctoral researchers supported by NIH to provide a sound basis for assessing workforce needs and planning future training activities. More comprehensive career outcomes data also would help to inform prospective graduate students and postdoctoral researchers contemplating careers in biomedical research. To read the full brief, please see below:

Future biomedical researchers: http://www.nih.gov/news/health/dec2012/od-07.htm

Dr. Sally Rockey comments on future postdoctoral training strategies



Dr. Sally Rockey comments on future postdoctoral training strategies
….,” as co-chair of the working group on the biomedical research workforce, I’m (Dr. Rockey) excited to share how NIH plans to support this critical component of the biomedical research enterprise, and improve the training experience of graduate students and postdocs alike. We intend to launch a program to support innovative approaches that expand and complement existing research training to include science-related career outcomes, and also encourage the adoption of individual development plans for all trainees. NIH plans to increase the funding of awards that encourage independence like the K99/R00 and early independence awards, and increase the initial postdoctoral researcher stipend. NIH also intends to embark on novel ways of improving the trainee experience, such as looking more closely at, and soliciting community feedback on, postdocs’ access to workplace benefits. To learn more about her thoughts, please see below:


Tuesday, November 27, 2012

Sequestration may lead to policies that would hurt postdocs

Sequestration may lead to policies that would hurt postdocs
The Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB) is rallying the biomedical research community to advocate against devastating funding cuts facing the nation’s  research agencies unless Congress acts before the end of the year. Under sequestration, the National  Institutes of Health (NIH) could lose $2.8 billion and would fund 25 percent (2,300) fewer grants. The  National Science Foundation (NSF) could be cut by nearly $600 million. More than 5,800 emails have  been sent to Congress in response to a FASEB e-action alert urging individuals to let their Senators and  Representatives know why federal funding for NIH, NSF, and other agencies is critical to local research institutions and state economies. “Labs will be forced to close, resulting in layoffs of tens of thousands of researchers. It will take generations to recover the lost talent, as dedicated young scientists and engineers will be driven from science by the disruption of their training and lack of jobs,” said FASEB President Judith S. Bond, PhD. To read more, please see: http://faseb.org/Portals/0/PDFs/opa/11.12.12%20Alert%20and%20Advocacy%20press%20release.pdf

Monday, November 19, 2012

The Obligation for Biologists to Commit to Political Advocacy

The Obligation for Biologists to Commit to Political Advocacy by: Thomas D. Pollard,  Cell Volume 151, Issue 2, 12 October 2012, Pages 239–243.   

The failure of Congress to adopt a deficit reduction program in 2011 resulted in a fall-back option called sequestration, which may reduce federal funding across the board by 8% on January 1, 2013. If this comes to pass, we face widespread unemployment in the biological research community and the loss of many valuable research programs.

Tuesday, June 26, 2012

NIH Biomedical Workforce Working Group on Postdocs


On June 14th the Biomedical Workforce Working Group at the NIH released their draft report detailing the steps they recommend the NIH take in the coming years to improve and support the personnel aspects of biomedical research.  The report which can be found here http://acd.od.nih.gov/bmw_report.pdf examines the involvement of the NIH in the financial support and training of graduate students, postdoctoral trainees, staff scientists, and physician scientists. 

As pertains to postdocs the NIH working group makes several recommendations, among them to:

·      Increase the number of training grant and fellowship slots and decrease the number of postdocs supported by research project grants in order to ensure that the postdoctoral period includes the training and mentoring opportunities that are afforded by the former slot types. 
·      Start a pilot program for extramural funding of training-based initiatives run by institutional postdoctoral offices
·      Increase stipend support to $42,000 per year with 4% increases in years 2-3 and 6% increases for years 4-7 in order to encourage PIs to move senior postdocs into more stable positions. This also aims to reduce the years spent in the postdoctoral training period.
·      Ensure that NIH supported postdocs receive the same benefits as all other employees at their institution.
·      Double the number of K99 and early independence awards and make earlier career postdocs eligible for K99 awards.
·      Require individual development plans (IDPs) of all NIH supported postdocs. 

The report also recommends that NIH study sections be encouraged to be receptive to grant applications from staff scientists, an important step in the professionalization of these ambiguous careers that fall in-between PI and postdoctoral status. 

Additionally, the report recommends that institutions receiving NIH funding be required to report and publically post career outcomes data of graduate and postdoctoral trainees.  This is much like recent pushes for accountability of law schools to claims of student success; publication of such data could be very useful to postdocs choosing between different institutions. 

You can also read about it in Science Careers: http://sciencecareers.sciencemag.org/career_magazine/previous_issues/articles/2012_06_22/caredit.a1200069

While the recommendations of the NIH working group are sure to garner much interest this year, it is clear from the report that they may not be implemented simply due to funding concerns.  As always, NIH funding remains of paramount interest in our community.  The BSD Postdoctoral association public affairs committee plans to keep you informed on the status of these recommendations and on NIH funding issues in the future.  Please feel free to post a blog or otherwise comment on these recommendations and other community wide concerns.  What do postdocs at U of Chicago think are the most important steps to sustaining and improving the biomedical workforce and the postdoctoral experience?  We would love to hear your thoughts! 

Sunday, April 8, 2012

Public Affairs Announcements April 9th 2012


National Postdoctoral Association (NPA), including its founders and member institutions, have been in the news
Science Careers' staff writer Michael Price wrote about the NPA founders in the article "NPA Founders Find Success." The article begins: "Postdocs who are interested in advocacy activities typically receive the same advice from postdoc advisers, so-called experts, and even their peers: Stay away." Fortunately, for postdocs,  the founders ignored that advice, as Price notes: "At its annual meeting in San Francisco in early March, the National Postdoctoral Association (NPA) celebrated its 10th anniversary with a panel discussion featuring six of the organization's seven founders -- all of whom ignored the conventional wisdom a decade ago and spent lots of time on a cause they thought was important: improving working conditions and expanding job options for postdocs."

President Obama mentions the R03 award
Yesterday, in a speech that the media are calling the de facto start of his reelection campaign, President Barack Obama offered up a bit of research arcana, the R03 award given by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). It popped up (without its name attached) in his attack on a Republican proposal to lower tax rates for the wealthiest Americans. Read more at the weblink below.

NIH’s Regional Seminar in Indianapolis
Each year, the Office of Extramural Research (OER) sponsors two NIH Regional Seminars on Program Funding and Grants. These seminars are intended to help demystify the application and review process, clarify Federal regulations and policies, and highlight current areas of special interest or concern. The seminars serve the NIH mission of providing education and training for the next generation of biomedical and behavioral scientist. Read more at the weblink below.

Strategic Planning for the NIH Common Fund
The NIH is hosting a public meeting in Chicago, IL, to gather input from the broad community on the biggest obstacles to progress in biomedical research or the greatest opportunities in biomedical science that are ripe for exploration. Input gathered from this meeting will help inform potential new program ideas for the NIH Common Fund. To sign up to be a participant in this discussion, use the weblink below.

Wednesday, April 4, 2012

Take Command and OWN Your Postdoc for Career Success


-A Recap of a Recent NIH Postdoc Professional Development Workshop

I’ve never written a blog post for anything before, but I figured that other postdocs might benefit from my experience so here goes….

This month I attended the National Institute for General Medical Sciences (NIGMS) Postdoctoral Workshop at the NIH in Bethesda, MD.  This theme of this workshop was to give postdocs that attended a leg up in the hiring process by giving them information and tools to help them better focus on their goals while postdocs and to succeed in the job search whether they choose academia or another option. 

It was a great workshop and I highly recommend that others from UC apply (they give scholarships to go!) and attend in the future.  I received a scholarship so it won’t end up costing me or my PI anything (well once I receive that refund check…) Check back at the website below in January to see if this program is running again next year.  We will also make sure that it is included in the BSD-PDA newsletter so that you get some notice about it. 

In the meantime all of the sessions from this year’s workshop are available free of charge as webcasts at the following website http://nigmsworkshop.org  I highly recommend that you watch the sessions on Interviews and on Negotiating!  They were fabulous.

One nice thing about this workshop was that it wasn’t only geared to postdocs with one foot out the door (There’s some info for you guys below too! Don’t stop reading here if you’ve already gotten a job offer).  There was plenty of excellent information for us newbies (less than 2 yrs). One of the things suggested for postdocs early in the process was an Individual Development Plan (IDP) which sounds really painful but is really just a great tool to help you take control of your postdoc.  The BSD-PDA has an IDP online that you can use http://www.bsdpostdoc.uchicago.edu/downloads/IDP-061011.pdf.   I’ll be filling out mine in a few weeks (after AACR) to help me find my way and I’ll try to let you all know how it went when I am done.  According to the presenters at the NIGMS, only 42% of us will stay in academia in ANY capacity.  Therefore, the majority of us are NOT going to become professors so finding out what other opportunities we are interested in and identifying the skills we need to develop during our postdoc to make these possible as well, is essential.  To make ourselves competitive in tomorrow’s job markets we need to use our postdoctoral experiences effectively. 

Another important thing to do is to NETWORK!!! At the meeting they couldn’t stress this enough.  I know many of you are not doing enough of this because I don’t know who almost any of you are.  Watch the Networking session online if you are shy, you don’t have confidence, or you are simply anti-social.  Then PRACTICE.  Practice with us, your fellow postdocs by coming to BSD-PDA events. More than likely the rest of us are as shy and awkward as you are. Then, get to know your department.  Get to know the PIs, learn who the other postdocs are, chat with the grad students (who knows they might be the ones to hire you someday!)  Also go to meetings: regional meetings, national meetings, or even (if you can get funding) that much admired International Meeting.  Smaller meetings like Gordon Conferences can be among the BEST networking opportunities.  Networking will get you collaborations, networking will get you more papers, networking will get you stuff for experiments that you need, networking might get you more lifelong friends, and FINALLY!!! Networking will probably get you your job.  I will quote Elaine Ostrander from the NHGRI and say “Everyone you meet has the potential to affect your career.”

For postdocs in later stages of their appointment there was tons of great advice.  I was particularly struck by the section of the Networking session about cultivating a relationship with the NIH and NSF program officers who covers your scientific interests.  Before this I only had a vague idea of what a program officer did.  I had NO idea they wielded so much power as advocates for your science. For a small number of special NSF awards if they hear a great idea from you they can simply decide to fund it.  No study session, no grant review.  You are just funded.  It is rare, but if you don’t communicate with them your chance of this is ZERO.  Someday mine is totally getting homemade cookies. If you already have a program officer with whom you have started developing a relationship, they want to hear from you.  They want you to send them info about presentations you are doing and about manuscripts that have been accepted.  If they think that it is cool enough science, they’ll do a press release.  And popular media is powerful!!

Why you ask???  Because not all funding comes from the NIH and the NSF!  Private grants make up a small but significant proportion of the research dollars.  The Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, Burroughs Wellcome Fund, and Robert Wood Johnson, and HOWARD HUGHES!!! are among the many charities named after dead guys that could give you money.  Susan G. Komen, however, might have a bit of trouble coming up with the funds to pay you in the future… Others are related to professional organizations like AACR or ACS.  Many are public organizations. Some of these funds are reliant on donations from the public. If your face got on TV or in an internet article then it is easier for them to take you on because they can sell your “public” accomplishments to their donors. 

Grants are your future employment insurance in this day and age so we’ve got to get them and they had tons of great tips at this meeting.  I’ll only give you one as a teaser.  The surest way to fail to get funded is to put forth an idea that’s already been done or funded.  After you do your literature searches make sure there isn’t already a NIH funded group working on your idea.  Go to  http://projectreporter.nih.gov/reporter.cfm and use the RePORTER to search funded grants in your topic area. It could save you A LOT OF TIME….

Well I’ve got publications to write and experiments to plan, an IDP to complete and perhaps also (somehow) a life to make.  So I’ll bid you goodnight and wish you all well.  May your grants get funded and may your PCRs all work.  Until we network at future events, sleep tight my friends and may dreams of Nature and Science papers or $120K per year industry jobs dance in your heads. 

Monday, April 2, 2012

Lessons from a grants workshop


Lessons from a grants workshop
By Kolla Kristjansdottir and Tuba Sural
December 3, 2010


Finding grants:
Half the battle is finding the right funding source for your idea.

Tips:
1-    Find the right program for you and your idea. If it doesn’t fit, can you spin it without compromising your idea?
2-    NIH: Good idea to look for Request for Applications (RFA). A RFA invites grant applications in a well-defined scientific area to accomplish specific program objectives. Specific funds are set aside and a special panel reviews. 
3-    Other foundations/grant agencies. Look up abstracts online of what they have funded in the last couple of years. Look up mission statement.

Funding resources:
Private (foundations, corporations etc) and Public (26 federal agencies, state and local agencies). Good websites for finding opportunities:

1-    www.grants.gov
2-    Community of science website (accessible through URA at U of Chicago)
3-    http://grantsnet.org/search/fund_dir.cfm
4-    http://researchadmin.uchicago.edu/find_funding.shtml  Foreign postdocs can use this site to identify grants for non-residents and non-citizens
5-    Google:  “grants” “for” “xxx”
6-    Office of research administration at Tufts university


Writing grants:

Writing good grants is a formula; it takes work and time
1-    Your grant should tell a story; walk reviewers step by step, from beginning to end
2-    Grant should flow, be well-written and to the point
3-    You can have a good idea but you need to tell it well. Start with a good idea and package it well.
4-    Know who you are and what you want to accomplish, make it into manageable pieces. Most new investigator and fellowship grants get rejected because they are over-ambitious.
5-    What’s the innovation? What’s new? What are you bringing to the literature? Never go by the negative.
6-    Follow the instructions. Each agency has their own (30% of grants get rejected because of technical issues, missing signatures etc.). If the guidelines request something, do it.
7-    Submit at least 5 days in advance (those who do so have a 37% higher chance of being funded, since they have not rushed and carefully planned the proposal)
8-    Get good letters of recommendations from people in your field (they should promote you)
9-    Understand the criteria used to evaluate proposals, know where to put your efforts. Typical criteria:
·      Scientific merit or need (is it innovative?)
·      Relevance to program priorities
·      Qualifications of project personnel (if your project needs a statistician and you don’t list one, you’ll be rejected)
·      Planning and administration of the project (don’t be overambitious!!)
10- Fill out forms completely and correctly
11- Allow time for intramural administrative requirements
12- For NIH grants, even though future directions are not required, include them

Developing a timeline:

  • 12 - 6 months before : Generate preliminary data
  • 6 - 3 months before : Create initial draft of proposal
  • 3 - 2 months before : Obtain comments from colleagues, revise accordingly
  • 2-1 months before: Prepare budget and “non-science” parts. Request recommendation letters (fellowships)
  • 1 month before: Have draft of “final version”. Obtain additional comments from colleagues on the “whole package”.
  • 2 - 1 weeks before: Final version proofreading (by someone who has not seen it before) and then proofread again!
  • 3 - 2 days before:  Submit proposal

Obtain critical input from experienced and successful colleagues:
1-    One with significant experience
2-    One with only passing familiarity with the subject
3-    A good writer

Find someone who is blunt, has little sympathy for your ego, smart and crafty and who has success in obtaining grants.

The review process:
Understand the review process and the reviewers. Each reviewer may be assigned 10-25 proposals so make it understandable and follow rules. Make it easy for them to find what they are looking for. You can look up the review panels for federal grants. There are experts and general audience in review panels, so when you write find the middle ground.

For the NIH review, even if you are famous and have written an excellent proposal, if it is not novel methodology, you will not get funding. But if you are a new investigator with a novel approach and a well-written grant, you have a chance.

NIH center for scientific review:
www.csr.nih.gov

What constitutes winning proposals?
1-    Clear need and data demonstrating that need
2-    Present material in a logical manner
3-    Written in positive terms
4-    Don’t overuse jargon
5-    Detailed budget (your department grant administrator will likely help you with this or do this for you)
6-    Give something back: who will benefit from this? What is the innovation? What are you contributing to the literature?
7-    Follow all guidelines
8-    Make it professional looking and textbook quality (no typos!)
9-    Make it not too long, not too short

Factors considered when awarding grants:
1-    Capacity of the applicant and the organization
2-    Extent of the need to the problem
3-    Balanced/clear approach
4-    Utilizing available resources
5-    Results

Most common criticisms:
1-    Poorly written
2-    Not well-justified; scientific problem, experimental model lacks convincing preliminary data
3-    No or poor hypothesis
4-    Objectives lack focus, too general
5-    Lack of detail in methods
6-    Investigator lacks expertise in given approach
7-    Pitfalls not addressed, alternative solution not presented
8-    Overly ambitious, timeline not realistic
9-    Resubmitted proposal didn’t address concerns identified during previous review

Abstract:
Most important section of your proposal is your Specific Aims and/or technical abstract! It’s the first thing they see; make it a work of art. Abstract should be the last section to be written and it should contain:
  • Identification of applicant/credibility
  • Issue/problem to be met
  • Objectives to be achieved (i.e. specific aims, they should be smart: specific, measurable, attainable, relevant, time-bound)
  • Activities to be conducted to achieve objective

Additional helpful hints:
1-    Big part of being funded is being persistent: 15% get funded the first time, 30% after revise-resubmit
2-    Don’t use anything less than 12pt font
3-    Minimize author-defined acronyms, it’s OK as long as you define them
4-    Clarity is everything, proofread, proofread, proofread!

Wednesday, February 15, 2012

Postdoc funding

We have assembled a document showing potential postdoc funding sources. Please comment or contact kolla@uchicago.edu if you have anything to add or change.
The document is here