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

if (n == null) The Scientist - Tips For Applying To Private Foundations For Grant Money The Scientist 5[18]:20, Sep. 16, 1991 Profession Tips For Applying To Private Foundations For Grant Money By Liane Reif-Lehrer Lack of adequate funding is the nemesis of today's scientific research. As money gets tighter, many scientists who have relied entirely on the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation, and other government agencies for res

News that a National Institutes of Health grant review committee intends to make a site visit causes many principal investigators to reach for aspirin and antacids. And indeed, a poor presentation to the committee virtually assures a research group that NIH will not fund its project. Yet a site visit need not be a traumatic experience. In fact, a clever PI can often turn the site visit into an opportunity to convince the NIH committee of the value and scholarship of a project. And remember: Si

Judging from his letter to The Scientist (April 2, 1990, page 18), Daniel L. Diaz misconstrued what I was trying to say in my article, "Suggestions For Saving Your Time - And Keeping Your Cool" (The Scientist, Feb. 19, 1990, page 24). I think it goes without saying that if a student has a serious problem or is facing a crisis situation - illness, a death in the family - the human element takes precedence and an administrator should indeed take the time to discuss the situation. Such events are

A scientist's ability to get up in front of an audience and give a good talk is no longer just an incidentally useful skill. Indeed, for today's investigator, the art of engaging a group of listeners is apt to be integral to success in the research world. Many scientists find, for example, that if they don't give talks at professional meetings, their peers are less likely to find out what they're doing, since, these days, publishing one's work is not enough. With the abundance of science journa

When I think about how to manage my time better, I remember the intense sense of embarrassment I felt during a conversation with a faculty member when I was a first-year chemistry graduate student. I had run into the professor after leaving my lab at about six o'clock on a warm California evening. We began to chat about an experiment I was doing, and I told him that I was planning to start a certain reaction the next morning. In a slightly caustic tone, the professor pointed out to me that if

With today’s pressure on researchers to publish papers frequently, the more time they can free up for pursuing their investigations, the better their chances of success. It takes time to accumulate good, reliable data to analyze the data astutely; and to write up the research accurately and clearly, either for publication or for inclusion in a grant proposal. Fortunately, just as modern science has created the means to gather better data faster, the science community also has bred a hos

“I have been writing grant proposals the way I saw fit all my life, and I never had a problem until recently,” a Harvard Medical School emeritus professor told me some months ago, “but now my colleagues tell me I have to follow the instructions.” I didn’t appreciate the importance of certain details, either—until I began to review grant applications. Although much of the National Institutes of Health application packet is self-explanatory or is explained

Sorry to say it, but if you are a scientist who has had a tough time obtain- ing federal funding to carry out your research, life is apt to become even more difficult in the next few years. In 1987, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) funded 6,446 competing grants. In 1990 the agency expects to fund only 4,719 grants. By cutting the number of grants it makes, NIH intends to boost the size of each grant. The move apparently stems from the agency’s feeling that too many scientists hav

Automated grant system could cut months off the proposal process. By 1990, the paper weight could lighten, those grant applications filling the mailrooms at the National Institutes of Health at the rate of 40 or so pages times seven copies times 25,000 proposals a year. The retyping at NIH could ease, too. Probably few grantees are aware that much of the administrative information on grant appli- cations is rekeyed in its travels through the agency. The abstract is retyped twice. To defe