Post-Doctoral Fellowship (F32) Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service Award (NRSA)
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Post-Doctoral Fellowship (F32)
Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research
Service Award (NRSA)
Presented by Lea Ziskind-Conhaim, PhD
“Dr. Ruth L. Kirschstein, for whom the awards
were named, passed away on October 6, 2009.
Aside from Dr. Kirschstein’s scientific
accomplishments in polio vaccine development,
and becoming the first woman director of an NIH
Institute (general medical sciences), she was a
champion of research training and a strong
advocate for the inclusion of underrepresented
individuals in the scientific workforce.”
The primary objective of the Fellowship
Invest in postdoctoral fellows who show potential
and strong commitment to become independent,
successful researchers.
The application should convince the review panel
that the award will help your scientific development
toward this goal.
Each application is reviewed and presented by
3 scientists and a panel of 20-25 researchers vote
on its merit.
Fellowship success rate
The application should demonstrate that the proposed project will increase the applicant’s intellectual and experimental breadth. Show convincingly that the fellowship will expand your repertoire of experimental techniques and scientific knowledge. Propose taking courses, preferably intense, hands-on courses, such as those offered at Cold Spring Harbor. The Office of Postdoctoral Studies should provide detailed information about its services to fellows.
In the section Additional Educational Information
add the resources provided by the Office of
Postdoctoral Studies that are appropriate for you.
Information about those resources can be found
on the Graduate School’s website:
http://grad.wisc.edu/mentoringpostdocsResearch Plan Write the research plan assuming that at least one of the reviewers has only a limited knowledge of your research field. (ask a “non-expert” to read it before submission) Take it easy on the reviewers. Start the introduction with a description of the big picture and gradually dive into finer details. Refer to relevant previous studies. References must be accurate, inclusive and appropriate for the written statements. Reviewers might penalize you if you cite less than about 40 references.
Research Plan (continued) Specific aims should be focused and hypothesis driven. Hammer it in: what is the rationale and importance of each aim. Aims should include: rationale, experimental design, expected outcome and alternative strategies and pitfalls. The latter is important but often ignored or discussed superficially. Avoid branching into too many sub-aims each time you have a great idea. Prioritize and stay focused.
Research Plan (continued) Preliminary data are not required, obviously help if you have it. Show preliminary data generated by others in the lab to demonstrate feasibility. Be practical. Some experiments are intriguing intellectually but the reviewers will ignore them if not practical. Do not build a major component of your research plan on iffy ground.
Research Plan (continued)
Do not make the reviewer see RED
Avoid writing complex/cumbersome sentences that
require the reviewer to read them 3 times for clarity.
Do not use an abbreviation without defining it. You
don’t want the reviewer to look it up or guess what it is.
Losing points for spelling mistakes = sloppiness.
Space is limited, but figures and legends should be
legible/understandable.Sponsor’s contribution to a
successful application
Sponsor has to write a detailed mentoring plan
tailored to the applicant’s development/preparation
toward independent scientific career. Include: courses
and attending national and international meetings.
Sponsor must be well-funded for at least the first
year of the award.
Sponsor has to be a well recognized expert in the
field of proposed project. Matched sponsor-applicant.
Recruit co-sponsor, collaborator if some of the specific
aims are out of the sponsor’s expertise.
Provide their CVs.Co-Sponsor’s contribution Co-sponsor/collaborator should write a detailed plan outlining their active role in mentoring, helping you learn a new technique and/or new concepts. If sponsor is a junior faculty with limited mentoring experience, it is best to recruit a senior co-sponsor. Sponsor must have funding to carry out the proposed project for at least the first year of award. If not, it is desirable to get a letter indicating funding support from the department, co-sponsor or collaborator.
Good Luck with your fellowship application
I will be happy to help if you have questions before
submitting your application
608-263-3382
lziskind@wisc.eduNIH K99/R00 Pathway to
Independence
Presented by Gail Robertson, PhD
• Provides 1-2 y mentored support followed by
3 y independent support
• Receipt of independent support requires
awardee to obtain an independent position
• Not limited to US citizens or permanent
residents
• Must submit or resubmit before end of 4th
year as postdocNIH K99/R00 Pathway to
Independence
• Must demonstrate compelling rationale for at
least one year of additional mentored
research training
• R00 phase research plan must be distinct from
projects to be continued in the mentor’s lab
after transition to independence
• Strong PhD publication record a must; strong
postdoctoral publication record also
important, but see first bullet above!Contact your institute first!
• National Cancer Institute (NCI) National Eye Institute (NEI) National Heart, Lung, and
Blood Institute (NHLBI) National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) National
Institute on Aging (NIA) National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism
(NIAAA) National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) National Institute
of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (NIAMS) National Institute of
Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (NIBIB) Eunice Kennedy Shriver National
Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) National Institute on
Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (NIDCD) National Institute of Dental
and Craniofacial Research (NIDCR) National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and
Kidney Diseases (NIDDK) National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) National Institute of
Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) National Institute of General Medical Sciences
(NIGMS) National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) National Institute of Neurological
Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) National Library of Medicine (NLM) National Center for
Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) ˘NIH K99/R00: Many components • Applicant’s training plan • Plans of mentor and co-mentors • Letters of support from collaborators and consultants • Environment and Institutional Commitment • Training in Responsible Conduct of Research • Research Plan Each of these will be evaluated and scored!
NIH K99/R00: The Mentor • Strong training record • Excellent funding • Available • Committed • Appropriate expertise to advise candidate • Co-mentors can fill in gaps
NIH K99/R00: Candidate’s Background
(1 p.)
• Research experience in college and relevance
to goals
• Thesis research – two-sentence summary,
publications, awards, patents, impact
• Postdoctoral work – same but in more detail;
also how did you select mentor, what do you
bring to lab that is unique
• Can include work in progress and refer to
manuscripts in preparationNIH K99/R00: Plan for Career Development/Training Activities (1 p) • Systematic plan to launch independent career • New and/or enhanced research skills and knowledge • Related skills such as grant-writing, communciation, leadership, laboratory management • Timeline with milestones during mentored phase and for transition to independent phase
NIH K99/R00: Plan for Career Development/Training Activities (cont) • Make a numbered list: • Formal interaction with mentors • Formal advisory committee meetings • New techniques to learn • Educational activities • Mentored job search From: Jake’s blog (handout)
NIH K99/R00: Research Plan • Clearly indicate research planned for each phase • Include what still needs to be accomplished in mentor phase to reach independence • Significance to human health, innovation, rationale for each aim • Relationship between mentor’s research and candidate’s proposed research • Is the R00 phase research significant, scientifically sound, and a logical extension of the K99 phase? • Will it carry the candidate well into his/her first R01?
Planning your submission • Talk to institute official before you begin • Start 4-6 months in advance • At least one month in advance, ask at least two readers for a critique and FOLLOW THEIR ADVICE; allow 2-3 weeks for revisions • Get input from non-expert or peer • Ask early for letters of recommendation – provide CV, summary of research plans and career development plans
Page limits • Specific Aims 1 • Candidate Information & Research Strategy 12 • Training in RCR 1 • Plans and Statements of Mentors 6 • Letters from collaborators etc 6 • Institutional Environment 1 • Institutional Commitment to Candidate 1 • Biosketch 4
Scoring
Outcomes • NIH-wide, 60-70% of successful applications are funded on first try (NINDS: almost all) • Aiming for 30% funding rate but pay lines have been closer to 23%
Relevant websites • NIH K99/R00 website http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PA-14-042.html • SF424 Application guide http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/424/SF424_RR_Guide_G eneral_VerC.pdf • Link to UCSF funded K99’s, including abstracts: http://accelerate.ucsf.edu/funding/awards/k99 • Advice from a blogger with a k99 score of 10 http://k99advice.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2012- 01-02T07:57:00-08:00&max-results=7 • NIH Reporter http://projectreporter.nih.gov/reporter.cfm
Happy to help… • Gail Robertson • garobert@wisc.edu • 608-265-3339
You can also read
