STUDY SECTION: YOUR NEW BEST FRIEND
Michael A. Taffe, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Committee on the Neurobiology of Addictive Disorders
The Scripps Research Institute
June 1, 2011
THE TWO THINGS YOU NEED TO KNOW
1) The way things are supposed to work
2) The way things really work
IT AIN’T ABOUT “DESERVE”….
• 7-8% paylines; 15-18% success rates
• This is not about
• “writing better grants” –Program Officer
• “incompetent review by Assoc Prof from WhereIsIt
University”
• “the reviewer is biased against me”
It is about you learning to navigate the study section process
Gather data, synthesize, apply to your situation thoughtfully
DO YOUR HOMEWORK!
•
How many of you can name a study section in your area?
•
Ask your current and prior PIs which study sections review their grants
•
Ask which Institutes and / or Centers fund their (and your) work if you don’t
know.
•
NIH RePORTER is your friend. http://projectreporter.nih.gov/reporter.cfm
• Keywords
• New Grants (1R01%)
• By IC
• By study section
• By PI
CONSIDER THE SOURCE OF THE ADVICE
• Assist. Prof. in 2000 (Not Equal to Asst Prof in 1980 or in 2011)
• 15 New, 12 Revised R01/R21 (as PI) 2000 – 2010
• Biobehavioral Regulation Learning and Ethology Study Section (Jan 05 –
Jun 09) – Koob declined this panel because his experience was dated
4
New
3
Revised
2
1
0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
R01DA013390-01
P30MH062261-019001
R01MH061692-01A2 Behav Path SIV
R21AA013972-01A1
R01DA18418-01A1 Behav Tox of MDMA
P20DA024194-01 Behav Tox of THC (Proj#3)
R01DA024705 Meth Immunopharmacotherapy
R01AA016807 Behav Tox of Alcohol
R01DA024105 MDMA self-admin
2015
“THE STUDY SECTION HATES ME….”
• BRLE handed Taffe ~7 triages
• BRLE handed Taffe 1.6%ile and 2.0%ile scores
“Hey, nice to meet you at last, Dr. Taffe…glad to see you finally
got your grant!”
N.b. Listen when someone is trying to send you a message
through summary statement (or mutual scientific friends)
STUDY SECTIONS HAVE CULTURAL EXPECTATIONS
• Weights placed on main review criteria
• Bias for seniority (“we know good science will result”)
• Bias for novelty / innovation (“this is exciting”)
• They strive for “fairness” (“Hey, wait, we would usually
hammer an application for this….”)
• Interpretation of mechanism goals (R21, R15 AREA)
“THE RESPONSE TO CRITIQUE IS….COMBATIVE”
• Assessing response to prior criticism is explicit part of review
• (They have Summary Statement, but not prior application!)
• Brandishing your C/N/S papers does not go over well
• Arguing the reviewers are morons does not go over well
• Yelling about “ERRORS” does not go over well
Your audience is not your critic but rather your advocate
-Give her/him the ammunition they need to make your case!
THE GOOD NEWS
The “death knell” is never absolute….
• Fewer first (or senior) author pubs than is expected
• Brand new Assistant Prof with no data but good idea
• PI that we (the study section) have never heard of
• PI who has changed jobs, been unproductive due to
personal or family issues / demands
Trust in your advocates, don’t prejudge yourself for the section.
THE STUDY SECTION
…and Rosters.
Standing Member (4 yr)
Vs
Ad Hoc (per round)
Can’t hurt to PubMed ‘em