Grant proposal writing for the life scientist may get easier in 2002 with the filing of a uniform electronic application for noncompetitive grants, but technical and bureaucratic tie-ups delay attempts to bring science funding into the computer age. The National Science Foundation has made strides in this direction by receiving applications electronically via a system called Fastlane, but the agency prints and circulates paper rather than electronic copies once the applications arrive. At the Na

The article "How To Wow A Study Section: A Grantsmanship Lesson" by Karen Hopkin in the March 2 issue of The Scientist (12[5]:11) contains a lot of good advice about writing grant applications. However, it also has a few errors that might mislead researchers not familiar with the National Institutes of Health application and review process. Hopkin writes about the study section meeting: "the reviewer who gave your proposal the highest relative score presents your application." It is my underst

In her commentary ("Survival In Today's Tight Funding Climate Depends On Following Agencies' Rules," The Scientist, April 29, 1996, page 11), Susan Fitzpatrick says that "the only point on which [her] advice differs from that provided in [my] article [L. Reif-Lehrer, "Following Instructions Is Critical To Success Of A Grant Application," The Scientist, March 4, 1996, page 15] is on 'networking' with program officers." This refers to a quote from Janet Rasey, head of the Research Funding Servic

Of A Grant Application Date: March 4, 1996 (The Scientist, Vol:10, #5, pg.15-16, March 4, 1996) (Copyright ©, The Scientist, Inc.) Getting financial support for research -- especially basic research -- has become very time-consuming and frustrating for scientists. At the National Institutes of Health, for example, the number of applications reviewed increased 14 percent, from 11,487 to 13,141, between October 1991 and October 1995, according to the October 1995 issue of Peer Review Notes,

NIH Grant Submission Computer compatibility and investigator reluctance blamed for the long delay in agency's move into the digital age. The Internal Revenue Service began accepting electronic transmission of federal income tax forms in 1986. This time- saving option has become quite popular, and by 1994 was used by some 14 million taxpayers. Yet at the National Institutes of Health--which funds some of the most scientifically sophisticated researchers in the world--grant proposals are, for the

Sidebar:A New Look For Summary Statements Sidebar: What is Triage? The expanded use of triage--under which certain grant applications deemed to be "noncompetitive" (NC) are not discussed in study sections--by the National Institutes of Health Division of Research Grants (DRG) has met with enthusiasic response from many NIH administrators. The new system, however, has engendered controversy in the extramural community. NIH welcomes

Back To: Science Community Gives Mixed Reviews To 'Triage' The National Institutes of Health announced in the September 23 NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts that it will extend its use of a triage system to all investigator-initiated research grant (R01) and "FIRST Award" (First Independent Research Support and Transition Award, R29) applications submitted for October/November 1, 1994 receipt dates and reviewed by the NIH

Back To:Science Community Gives Mixed Review To 'Triage' Summary statements for National Institutes of Health grant applications (often referred to as "pink sheets," although they have not been printed on pink paper since 1991) will be formatted differently from now on: Summary statements will consist primarily of the individual reviewers' critiques. Scientific review administrators (SRAs) will write summaries of the s

Sidebar:A New Look For Summary Statements Sidebar: What is Triage? The expanded use of triage--under which certain grant applications deemed to be "noncompetitive" (NC) are not discussed in study sections--by the National Institutes of Health Division of Research Grants (DRG) has met with enthusiasic response from many NIH administrators. The new system, however, has engendered controversy in the extramural community. NIH welcomes

Back To: Science Community Gives Mixed Reviews To 'Triage' The National Institutes of Health announced in the September 23 NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts that it will extend its use of a triage system to all investigator-initiated research grant (R01) and "FIRST Award" (First Independent Research Support and Transition Award, R29) applications submitted for October/November 1, 1994 receipt dates and reviewed by the NIH

Back To:Science Community Gives Mixed Review To 'Triage' Summary statements for National Institutes of Health grant applications (often referred to as "pink sheets," although they have not been printed on pink paper since 1991) will be formatted differently from now on: Summary statements will consist primarily of the individual reviewers' critiques. Scientific review administrators (SRAs) will write summaries of the s

University professors, although highly trained in their subject, often have had no formal training in teaching. Even if they were teaching fellows as graduate students, their performance may not have been monitored, and they may not have had good role models. Also, because teaching skills are often not a qualification for promotion at large research institutions, many scientists acknowledge that they are not motivated to improve their performance in this area. Thus, some of the most innovati

Date: December 7, 1992 I am sometimes asked, in the course of my proposal-writing workshops, "Why would someone want to serve as a grant reviewer? It's hard work for only a small honorarium." I answer that it's a way for senior scientists to pay back the scientific community for what it's done for them. Alan Schoenfeld, a professor of education and mathematics at the University of California, Berkeley, thinks similar dynamics in family life provide a good analogy. "Children do not repay thei

In the July 20, 1992, issue of The Scientist (page 20), an article by scientific consultant Liane Reif-Lehrer discussed ways in which young academic researchers can bring their scientific expertise and abilities to the attention of potential mentors and employers. Reif-Lehrer, a former senior scientist at the Eye Research Institute of Retina Foundation in Boston and a former associate professor at Harvard Medical School who leads workshops on such topics as proposal writing and time management,

Many people naively think they will get what they deserve if they just dutifully do what is expected of them. But this is a vain thought and is particularly ill-adapted to the lifestyle of overworked American scientists. It assumes that other people focus, at least to some extent, on us and our needs. In actuality, most people focus primarily on themselves, and it is our obligation to call their attention to our scientific expertise and abilities if these needs are to be met. My own experience