Michael A. Taffe, Ph.D.

Associate Professor

Committee on the Neurobiology of Addictive Disorders

The Scripps Research Institute

STUDY SECTION: YOUR NEW BEST FRIEND

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

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015R01DA013390-01P30MH062261-019001

R01MH061692-01A2 Behav Path SIVR21AA013972-01A1

R01DA18418-01A1 Behav Tox of MDMAP20DA024194-01 Behav Tox of THC (Proj#3)

R01DA024705 Meth ImmunopharmacotherapyR01AA016807 Behav Tox of Alcohol

R01DA024105 MDMA self-admin

0

1

2

3

4

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

New

Revised

“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