NIH 101: What You Need to Know A cultural immersion in NIH extramural research, with a special focus on opportunities for CSD researchers through NIDCD. Presentation Video
Free
Presentation Video  |   April 29, 2014
NIH 101: What You Need to Know
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Daniel Sklare
    Division of Scientific Programs, National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (NIDCD)/National Institutes of Health (NIH)
  • Presented at Lessons for Success (April 2014). Hosted by the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association Research Mentoring Network.
    Presented at Lessons for Success (April 2014). Hosted by the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association Research Mentoring Network.×
  • Lessons for Success is supported by Cooperative Agreement Conference Grant Award U13 DC007835 from the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (NIDCD) of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and is co-sponsored by the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) and the American Speech-Language-Hearing Foundation (ASHFoundation).
    Lessons for Success is supported by Cooperative Agreement Conference Grant Award U13 DC007835 from the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (NIDCD) of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and is co-sponsored by the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) and the American Speech-Language-Hearing Foundation (ASHFoundation).×
Article Information
Research Issues, Methods & Evidence-Based Practice / Professional Issues & Training / Planning, Managing and Publishing Research / Grantsmanship and Funding
Presentation Video   |   April 29, 2014
NIH 101: What You Need to Know
CREd Library, April 2014, doi:10.1044/cred-pvd-lfs015
CREd Library, April 2014, doi:10.1044/cred-pvd-lfs015

The following is a transcript of the presentation video, edited for clarity.

We call this the NIH 101 session. This just lays the groundwork for your own individual scenarios and questions that are not going to be answered by what we present. But I think we give you kind of a cultural immersion here that would be difficult for you to pick up simply on your own from a website and reading NIH announcements and the like.

Congratulations, Gratitude & Kudos!

Congratulations, Gratitude & Kudos!

Congratulations, Gratitude & Kudos!

×
Without further ado, congratulations, gratitude, and kudos to the following parties. Firstly to our ASHA colleagues headed by Margaret Rogers and a capable team of associates for doing the Lessons for Success conference so successfully for many years. The reviews of this particular conference grant, which is a U13, or a cooperative conference grant, have been absolutely spectacular. The kind of reviews you'd like to showcase on your own personal homepage and hang up on your wall, and there's a reason for that. It's a wonderful team effort for the planning committee, of course, and all the participants. Gratitude to the mentors and presenters for giving of your time, and there is a lot of time: travel, preparation, doing your reviews and contributing to forging the independent career trajectories of you in the audience, who are very promising individuals. And we're really delighted to be co-funding this together with ASHA and the ASHFoundation.

Outcomes of LfS Protégés

Outcomes of LfS Protégés

Outcomes of LfS Protégés

×
This is a slide I love to show. It's directly from Margaret 's grant application frankly, reflecting ASHA's survey data and outcomes of the Lessons for Success protégés. This gives you a breakdown of who you are. This has been fairly consistent, with about half of you junior level faculty members, typically assistant professors, and the other half divided between doctoral students, postdoctoral fellows and the like. We found that within two years of participation, almost forty percent of you would apply for NIH funding. And look at this: 94% of those who apply to the NIH, other federal agency, or ASHFoundation won an award. That's absolutely astounding. Overall, of all the participants, the success rate was 39%, and five years post-Lessons for Success participation (this meeting has been happening well over a decade now) 97% of attendees at this meeting have held academic or nonacademic research positions. That's pretty incredible. It really is, and serves as a showpiece for the organizers and a model for other professional societies to follow.
So here's my plan. First, we want to tell you something, and this is kind of motivational in flavor, of launching an NIH-funded, independent research career: the challenges and rewards. We'll give you an introduction to extramural NIH and NIDCD, bearing in mind that NIH is two different worlds that do not much intersect. And that is intramural NIH and extramural, we're talking extramural NIH here. Then we'll go into starting out the game with individual fellowships pre-doctoral, postdoctoral, with an emphasis on postdoc fellowships because most of you are past the point of applying for the dissertation stage of work, but postdocs should be within your sights and consideration. I will talk about mentored junior-level K awards, career development awards, and applicable research project grants for the new investigator. And I am always struggling to leave time for questions at the end, but I will be pretty light on individual slides.
Launching an NIH-Funded Independent Research Career: The Challenge, Opportunities and Rewards

Rough Seas

Rough Seas

Rough Seas

×
You come here, basically, with the expectation and fear that getting NIH funding is really tough. The waters are really rough. It's a very difficult task to prevail in this struggle.

Smooth Sailing

Smooth Sailing

Smooth Sailing

×
However, your sailing is a good deal smoother if you come as an informed consumer. Firstly, having great, grand ideas, that's the purpose of Lessons for Success. As well as continually learning, it's a lifelong process, improving your grant writing skills. And my role and the role of my colleagues is largely to give you some real initiation to the NIH system.
To be a scientist is to be detail-oriented. Read NIH announcements carefully, as well as application instructions, before you pick up the phone or send an e-mail to one of us to ask your questions, but ask those questions. Inevitably you leave those documents with the puzzled feeling, because you are going to have questions. And of course, build your endurance to stay the course, even if the borders are somewhat rough at times. Even seasoned investigators have had those rough waters, almost inevitably.

Your Keys to Success

Your Keys to Success

Your Keys to Success

×
What are your keys to success? Your mentored research training. You need to take full advantage of that. You've got to have the right type of proposal with significance, innovation, and obviously scientific and technical merit. Your commitment and tenacity to the goal of becoming a researcher or a clinician-researcher needs to be absolutely ironclad. As well, your tenacity needs to be fairly unshakable. And you grant writing skills need to be continually refined.
These are the people who are in this game and generally do prevail.

Facts of Life for Aspiring and Emerging Health Sciences Independent Investigators

Facts of Life for Aspiring and Emerging Health Sciences Independent Investigators

Facts of Life for Aspiring and Emerging Health Sciences Independent Investigators

×
What are the facts of life? For this type of lifestyle, obviously: keen competition for grants. When you are talking NIH or other federal agencies, funding levels tend not to vary a great deal. They are fairly constant, or often diminishing over the years. There is always uncertainty in our world with respect to a federal agency. We're completely dependent on Congress and the president for our budget. Indeed, this next fiscal year, 2015, shares the uncertainty of other years and is very likely to be flat -- namely no budgetary increases this coming fiscal year, beginning October 1, relative to the current fiscal year. That is not cast in stone, it could change, but that's our conservative projection.
However, on the positive side, today's NIH is getting more and more new investigator friendly. We're even friendly towards seasoned investigators, as evidenced by a surprise announcement to most of us on April 17th that you are no longer restricted to an original NIH application and one revision. Indeed, you can put in yet another application duplicating or significantly overlapping the previous one, and it's reviewed as a new application. That is investigator friendly.
Bear in mind that the best prepared and the most tenacious applicants generally compete successfully, even in the toughest times.

The Research Pipeline in CSD

The Research Pipeline in CSD

The Research Pipeline in CSD

×
I like speaking to the communication sciences and disorders crowd because we can speak about how the pool of trained scientists simply is not keeping pace with the burgeoning scientific opportunities. Notice that over a hundred research doctoral degrees in speech language pathology and audiology are issued. A small number of these people, to our dismay, go on for postdoctoral training, even those that have a strong aptitude and research interests. It's higher in other fields. So we want to encourage our best and brightest, we look to you, to consider postdoctoral research training, even for a year or two, ideally two years or even more. And note that there are open faculty positions out there in CSD type departments. If you are willing to travel and take a faculty position at the front end with the expectation of maybe moving to a more research intensive environment as you are building your career.

The Research Pipeline in CSD

The Research Pipeline in CSD

The Research Pipeline in CSD

×
Clearly, clinician investigators are crucial translators of scientific advances. NIH certainly has bought into this, I think Congress has as well. And your role as a clinically trained scientist -- be you an oncologist, an audiologist, a speech language pathologist -- can be as a PI (principal investigator); a substantive co-investigator (what are often called "team scientists") who don't lead a research effort, but are substantively contributing to its success, and obviously coauthors or maybe the first author on publications emerging from that effort; and of course chairs of departments, directors of research or deputy chairs, and vice chairs play a critical role in the overall academic research enterprise.

NIDCD Provisions for New and Emerging Investigators

NIDCD Provisions for New and Emerging Investigators

NIDCD Provisions for New and Emerging Investigators

×
NIDCD has some special provisions even beyond NIH Central for new and emerging investigators. You may be aware of several of these. Several of you are having experience with the NIDCD R03 small grant program. This is specifically for transitioning postdoctoral fellows and new faculty member investigators. It's different from the NIH-wide R03 program.
Furthermore, I'm delighted to tell you, if you don't know already, that our Institute, the NIDCD, is one of the few at the NIH that personally, ourselves, do the Fellowship reviews. Our scientific review branch does them in an expedited fashion. Indeed, later on we'll introduce some members of our review staff, as well as program staff to you. It's a team effort, and that process is expedited to the point that from when you put in your application, to the funding decision, to actually getting funding if you are so fortunate, can be as short as four to five months.
The beauty of that is it enables you to, first of all, go with the clock ticking in your career at critical juncture, and also if necessary, to revise and resubmit your fellowship application (if easily upgradable) for the next submission date without skipping a round of the three submission rounds per year. That's a special provision we make.

NIDCD Provisions for New and Early-Stage (ESI) Investigators

NIDCD Provisions for New and Early-Stage (ESI) Investigators

NIDCD Provisions for New and Early-Stage (ESI) Investigators

×
We also have a provision for individuals who are ESIs or early-stage investigator R01 applicants, as well as junior mentored K award applicants (like K08 and K23 awardees) to submit a letter of response to the summary statement critiques, which we consume at the staff level, and we put in front of our Institute's Advisory Council, which meets three times a year for consideration of funding. Even if your score may be considered in somewhat of the grey zone for funding. There is not actually a funding cutoff that we have for fellowships and K awards, but obviously scores do matter.
Furthermore, your early-stage investigator (ESI) or NI (new investigator) status is considered at the second level overview, at the Council level, or at the training board level for fellowships. And typically we do not administratively reduce the budgets of new investigators or early-stage investigators, and certainly not K awardees and fellows, who are getting a small enough amount generally to begin with.

New NIH-Wide Policy

New NIH-Wide Policy

New NIH-Wide Policy

×
What I mentioned beforehand, and that date should be 4/17, my error, NIH Central has broadened its policy to allow individuals who are unsuccessful in their one allowable revised application resubmission to submit as a new application. This is an important development.

NIDCD Budget and Success Rates

NIDCD Budget and Success Rates

NIDCD Budget and Success Rates

×
I think this is encouraging information to show you, focusing on the column on the right, fiscal year 2013, the last full fiscal year we have data on. Firstly, our budget as an Institute was $417 million. The success rate of our Fs or fellowships, this is across pre- and postdocs, is about 40% or so. Our K99/R00, which is a two-phased K award for seasoned postdoctoral fellows, has been coming up actually to about 35% relative to earlier years. Our R03 success rate is holding currently at about 30%. These are the ratio of applications funded to those reviewed. And our R01 rate is 26% again, averaging across initial applications and revised applications.
This is pretty good news. This is pretty solid. You've got a real chance here, if you've got the right stuff, and if you heed the advice given at this conference, and really follow through and network and do all those positive things.
That's meant to encourage you. Despite the challenges, despite the rough waters. Because many people in the Navy do survive in rough waters, and you want to be among them. And there is no such thing as a poor Navy pilot. You've only got good pilots, and you've got better than good pilots. So you want to be in in the higher echelons in order to prevail in the system.

Challenges of Today's Academic Biomedical Investigator

Challenges of Today's Academic Biomedical Investigator

Challenges of Today's Academic Biomedical Investigator

×
So, what are your challenges? Your challenges are significant, and they are many.
You depend on federal grant support. You, of course, depend on that not only to get funded, but also for promotion and tenure. To build your lab, your own career. You need constantly to -- and the seasoned folks in the audience will testify to this -- to always during your working life be writing new grant applications. And don't be in a situation where you've got great ideas, but just can't find the time. Time management skills are critical. You're under pressure to publish, preferably in high-impact journals. And of course, across academia your net worth and promotionary potential can be pretty closely tied to your ability to bring in extramural grant support, particularly federal support.

Core Competencies of Successful Independent NIH-Funded Researchers

Core Competencies of Successful Independent NIH-Funded Researchers

Core Competencies of Successful Independent NIH-Funded Researchers

×
What are your core competencies? You need to be absolutely passionate about what you're doing: you can't imagine yourself doing anything else. You're developing novel and compelling research ideas. You stay doggedly focused in the short-term and long-range, on what your goals are. And you structure your life so you can pursue those without significant interruption. You build in the needed training. You constantly network and build scientific writing proposals.
You understand your literature, the background literature to your field very well. Particularly the leaders, the camps, and the controversies. It is very disheartening when we get a fellowship or a K award application, and it comes in without an understanding of the requisite background literature. It's even more disheartening when you're in a hotly contested area of scientific inquiry, and indeed your reviewer may well be from the other camp. So you see the dangers therein. Stay cautious, stay conservative, stay informed.

Core Competencies of Successful Independent NIH-Funded Researchers

Core Competencies of Successful Independent NIH-Funded Researchers

Core Competencies of Successful Independent NIH-Funded Researchers

×
You proactively, every single day, want to stay informed on funding opportunities. You need to subscribe to and check at least on a once a week basis (I would suggest two to three times a week) the NIH guide, because announcements, notices, funding opportunities constantly go into it. You want to actively network. That's one of the reasons you are here and getting to know each other and your mentors here. You want to build your inner core so that you can be tenacious without being abusive. And prepare for criticism, and even rejection. It's not personal. And even if it is, you're stronger than that. And you want to write applications directed not just to one funding source, but to several. You want to diversify your assets, as you never know when one funding source might dry or fall through. So you need a soft landing strategy.
These are just some pearls of wisdom that we've dealt with over so many years, and picked up. And they are certainly not unique to the NIH, but they are very generalizable.

If You Seek a Career as a CSD Researcher, Get Mentored!

If You Seek a Career as a CSD Researcher, Get Mentored!

If You Seek a Career as a CSD Researcher, Get Mentored!

×
So if you want to be a clinician-researcher, you need to get mentored. Scientists, the literature has shown, who have effective mentors tend to allocate more time to research over their careers. They complete projects to fulfillment. They publish them. They are more successful in gaining grant awards.
So again my pitch. If you are a doctoral student thinking about what to do next: You may have a faculty position opportunity, obviously you have bills to pay and you may have family responsibilities. Life is complex and multifaceted. But strongly consider doing two years of postdoc training if you at all can. You will not regret it.
Furthermore, apply for mentoring programs. We have NIH-funded institutional training grants called T32s in addition to individual fellowships. And then of course there are mentorship programs such as the ASHA Pathways program, which is kind of sister program to this in the overall ASHA system of research mentoring. We're delighted to have three guests coming from the Duke University mentoring program that we are also supporting. And of course, this program Lessons for Success and the ASHA CPRI program all provide you with different opportunities to obtain research mentoring. One or more of those would be appropriate to you.
Introduction to Extramural NIH & NIDCD
Okay, so now let's back up, change gears and speak about what the NIH is. This is known to most of you, but just to cover the basic groundwork, the National Institutes of Health is the nation's primary steward for the support of health-related biomedical and behavioral research. We are a vast organization. There are 27 institutes and centers. Twenty four of them make grant awards. And of course, our mission, most holistically, is to promote human health, reduce the burden of disease, and the like.

Where Is Research Conducted?

Where Is Research Conducted?

Where Is Research Conducted?

×
As I mentioned earlier, NIH has two worlds, two biospheres, if you will. Extramural research, which we represent, which promotes and funds research to the two to three thousand academic and nonacademic research institutions, primarily in the US, but a few abroad as well. And our intramural research program. This afternoon you are going to hear from a very impressive intramural NIDCD researcher by the name of Doctor Lisa Cunningham, who will charge you up in how to write an R01 application. And Lisa is an intramural researcher. She does research within the NIH, the NIDCD intramural research program.

National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders

National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders

National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders

×
So, NIDCD, National Institute on Deafness and other Communication Disorders. We were born by an act of Congress in 1988 to be the primary NIH supporter of seven research areas: hearing, balance (by the way, that is both vestibular and non-vestibular contributors to human balance control), smell, taste (those are the special senses that we inherited from our prior home in the Neurology Institute), and of course voice, speech, and language. So human communication, plus the special senses of taste and smell. And we're all about normal and disordered processes, and everything connected to that.

FY13 NIDCD Extramural Research Project Grant Portfolio

FY13 NIDCD Extramural Research Project Grant Portfolio

FY13 NIDCD Extramural Research Project Grant Portfolio

×
For fiscal year 2013, our breakdown (and this has been quite stable over the years): 50% to 60% of our dollars and grants are in the hearing area. Five to seven percent in balance. Smell and taste is about 16 and 17. And about 25 percent in voice, speech and language.
This, by the way, is not by act of Congress or even determined locally within the Institute or NIH Director's office. These are not allocations. This reflects the applications we get, and the awards we make. So you, the scientific community, are the drivers. But this has been remarkably stable over the many years.

Other NIH Institutes Supporting Research and Research Training Relevant to CSD

Other NIH Institutes Supporting Research and Research Training Relevant to CSD

Other NIH Institutes Supporting Research and Research Training Relevant to CSD

×
To sensitize you, NIDCD is not the only awarding component of the 24 Institutes and Centers that make grant awards at the NIH that supports CSD-related research. Indeed, a valued colleague of ours, Doctor Lisa Freud, will be here for the lunchtime session or perhaps a little before from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD). And we'll distinguish NIDCD and NICHD with respect to language research in a little while, as far as who supports what.
National Institute on Aging (NIA), National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) (where we used to be a division, before we were born in 1988), National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research (NIDCR). These are the most common Institutes that interface with communication sciences and disorders, and our other mission areas. So we're not the only game in town.

NIDCD Research Mission in Human Language and Communication

NIDCD Research Mission in Human Language and Communication

NIDCD Research Mission in Human Language and Communication

×
The NIDCD research mission in human language and communication is primarily in the disordered domains of disordered speech perception, phonology, language. Language of the hard of hearing and the deaf. Language and communication functions in autism spectrum disorders (ASD) are also primarily within our purview of responsibility. Voice, swallowing, and speech production in health and disease. Alternative and augmentative communication modalities, computer-assisted and otherwise, are also primarily supported by the NIDCD. Research in swallowing and dysphagia is funded by more institutes than the NIDCD, and every individual proposal needs to come to us for consideration about what the most appropriate home will be.

NICHD Research Mission in Human Language and Communication

NICHD Research Mission in Human Language and Communication

NICHD Research Mission in Human Language and Communication

×
Contrast this to the NICHD, the Child Health Institute, which Lisa will tell you more about during the lunch session, which is primarily focused on the more normative, typically developing aspects of language. Reading and writing from infancy and adulthood. And atypical development of language and communication in mental retardation and developmental disabilities. Normative speech production, literacy, reading disabilities, and related learning disabilities are also primarily within the NICHD domain. And finally, bilingualism and second-language acquisition is also in NICHD.
So you can see that if you're in the normative language arena, you're going to want to speak to us and to the NICHD before you put in a fellowship application or K award thinking that you can go to one Institute because it may be indeed that we would send you to the other Institute. You want to touch base with relevant NIH staff in both Institutes before being certain where your application is going to go and directing it there. And even be influenced by the funding priorities and scope of the Institute where you want your application to be assigned to.

NIH Funding Mechanisms

NIH Funding Mechanisms

NIH Funding Mechanisms

×
Funding mechanisms at the NIH is an alphabet soup of activity codes. Your general rule is if that alphanumeric begins with an "R" it's a research grant. If it begins with an "F" it's a fellowship. A "T" is an institutional training grant, and a "K", of course, is a career development award. Bear in mind that at the NIH, as much unity as we want to present in front of the public at large or Congress, we are truly a complex organization of somewhat different, albeit overlapping fiefdoms. We use mechanisms somewhat differently; we use different mechanisms. We have different ways of interpreting; we have different funding levels. You need to be speaking to the Institute or Institutes that you're interested in and get to know its internal culture. And that's another reason why we take so much time to speak to you, to kind of sensitize you to those.

NIH Funding Mechanisms

NIH Funding Mechanisms

NIH Funding Mechanisms

×
Your primary source of information on NIH initiatives and notices is the all-important NIH Guide. There are FOAs -- funding opportunity announcements -- there are notices, there are requests for applications. It needs to be required reading, at least scanning, at least once a week. I would suggest two to three times a week because the clock starts ticking and it may be only 60 days to apply for a given earmarked initiative (sometimes even less) and you need a lot of time to put together a strong NIH application.
It is important that you direct your application to the Institute or funding agency that will optimize your chances -- whoever matches the best -- and that you pick the right funding mechanism for your career stage for the purposes you are after. There are even seasoned investigators that haven't quite gotten this one down when they serve as mentors for their youngsters. It's important to come up to speed on this as quickly as you can, with the cognizance that NIH is a fast-changing dynamic place and things can change.
People who were informed about NIH practice and policies five years ago are most likely not up to speed on what the currency is. You really need to be on the cutting-edge of NIH as it evolves in its complex journey.

Before Submitting an Application

Before Submitting an Application

Before Submitting an Application

×
Before submitting an application you will want to consult the relevant PO -- that's your NIH program officer -- to make sure that proposal is appropriate to that Institute's research mission. Don't make that tacit assumption. I actually ask fellowship and K award applicants to send me a draft specific aims page. It takes time to go through them, but at least we can be more confident that indeed, this proposal is appropriately directed and assigned to our Institute, and if it scores well, we can fund it without any hesitation and second-classing in terms of the scientific priority or not. We want to treat all applications in a level playing field. It is important to do that initial triage of whether my application is being directed to the proper Institute. Bear in mind in today's NIH you can deal with more than one Institute. Typically your proposal is assigned to one primary assignee Institute, and one or more secondary or tertiary assignee Institutes as well. And you have some real say in today's NIH on where it's assigned to, on the basis of putting in a covering letter making that request. In your covering letter, if you can say I am making this request on the basis of having consulted the training officer or the program officer in Institute X who told me that this is within that Institute's mission, it is very likely the Center for Scientific Review referral officer will grant your request.
If it's in an NIDCD directed fellowship, we have a frequently asked questions document that I think is quite informative. Stay informed. Subscribe to the guide. And above all, and Lisa Cunningham will drive home this message as I could never, with the fervor of her personal experience: Start early. Speed is the enemy of quality. Think in terms of a twelve-month lead time for a full-blown R01 and at least four to six months for smaller types of applications from conceiving of the idea to producing the application.

Before Submitting an Application

Before Submitting an Application

Before Submitting an Application

×
You also, before submitting, want to make sure that you make friends and register with your institutional grants office so that you're registered with the NIH ERA Commons. Obviously carefully read and consume our funding opportunity announcements, as well as the statements of individual Institutes you are interested in, which will be in section seven at the end of NIH-wide program announcements if a number of Institutes participate in them. Because again, different Institutes have different priorities, provisions, modes of interpretation, and even eligibility criteria on some mechanisms.
You want to write an original application, not a cut and paste from your mentor's application. Indeed, the current NIH fellowship guidelines state (now more succinctly than ever) that your proposal must be sufficiently distinct from your sponsor or mentor's research program, and of course appropriate for your career stage. So just because you are working on your mentor's R01 and your mentor is more than happy to turn over one or more of his or her specific aims to you for a fellowship or for a K award, that does not mean that you should cut and paste it into your application. It needs to have originality, it needs to be yours, albeit under the guidance of your sponsor.

NIH Extramural Staff

NIH Extramural Staff

NIH Extramural Staff

×
Now let's talk about who we are. The diversity among us. We have basically three types of individuals in the NIH extramural world. We have the program officer. We have the scientific review officer. We have the grants management specialist officer. What are the roles and responsibilities that you need to know about?
The program officer deals with pre-submission questions and post-review questions: your application was reviewed, you don't have a summary statement yet, you want to hear how it fared -- especially if it got scored. We will have hopefully attended the review. And post-award scientific management of grants is done by the program officer. I neglected to say here that overall running of scientific program and research initiatives also come from the PO or program officer.
The scientific review officer handles your pre-review, post-submission questions, makes reviewer assignments, convenes and runs the review meeting, guides it according to NIH guidelines, and generates the summary statement. Once the summary statement is generated, you default back to the program officer, in general, for questions and concerns.
The grants management specialist is actually the official government person who is empowered and responsible for making grant awards. They are the ones who are officially responsible to NIH fiscal management policy. They activate your award. They manage it fiscally. They terminate it. So they are a very important person in your life. They could be construed as a parent in this sense: they begin your life, and they see you through their lifetime. And of course award compliance and NIH administrative requirements are monitored by the grants management officer.
We are a very interactive group, especially in a small Institute like the NIDCD. We constantly talk to each other, interact, and get along generally like a happy family.
Starting Out: Individual Fellowships

Types of NIDCD Research Training and Career Development Awards

Types of NIDCD Research Training and Career Development Awards

Types of NIDCD Research Training and Career Development Awards

×
Moving on, our next topic is NIDCD (and this largely reflects the overall NIH) research training and career development mechanisms.
There are two different subcategories. There are the Ruth L. Kirschstein, former famed director of the NIH and director of the National Institute of General Medical Sciences for many years, who was an extremely big training advocate. So the RLK National Research Service Awards (NRSAs) come in two flavors: individual fellowships (pre-docs and post-docs). And institutional training grants (T32s and T35s).
In the case of individual fellowships, you as the applicant apply directly to the NIH. For institutional training grants, you don't apply to the NIH, you apply to the funded program director at that institutional training grant. NIDCD currently funds 33 institutional training grants at institutions around the country related to our scientific mission areas.
Then there are the career development, or K awards. These, too, come in different flavors. There are the mentored junior clinician scientist awards, the K08 for basic research, K23 for patient oriented or clinical research. There is a very unique mechanism that is a dual phase career development award called the K99/R00. This is an early-stage career transition award. Its official name is pathways to independence award. And this provides a year or two of postdoctoral mentored support for a fairly seasoned postdoc. And a two- to three-year period of a research award for an independent, newly appointed faculty member. This is a very special mechanism that is a fairly complex mechanism at that. It is primarily for postdoctoral fellows that have had two to three years of experience, but now in today's NIH less than four years of experience, who want to compete for often hotly contested faculty positions, most frequently in the fundamental rather than the clinical sciences.
There are other junior to mid-career mentored research career development awards. K01 and K25 are some of those special cases.

NRSA Program Goals

NRSA Program Goals

NRSA Program Goals

×
NRSA program goals -- these are the fellowships and training grants. Obviously we want to identify, nurture, and support the most promising individuals who are most likely to become independent scientists and facilitate them from student to postdoc to independent career stages.

NIDCD-Supported Individual NRSA Fellowship Mechanisms

NIDCD-Supported Individual NRSA Fellowship Mechanisms

NIDCD-Supported Individual NRSA Fellowship Mechanisms

×
There are three basic types of individual fellowships that the NIDCD uses. These are common to the other Institutes as well.
The F30 is for predoctoral students who are in a dual-degree research and clinical doctoral degree program, most commonly in an MD/PhD program. Though in recent years we and some of the other Institutes have expanded to allow individuals in the non-medical health professions. In our case, most frequently AuD/PhD students who are in a truly integrated dual-degree program, i.e., where both doctoral degrees are conferred at the end of the process and it's integrated at all levels. This is a special fellowship to support those individuals.
The F31 is your garden-variety pre-doc Fellowship for dissertation stage research. There is a generic F31 that applies to all. There is a diversity F31 that applies students from underrepresented racial and ethnic minority groups, students with disabilities, and from disadvantaged economic backgrounds. The diversity F31 applies not only to the dissertation stage of training, but can even be pre-dissertation stage as well, at the coursework stage.
The F32 is your garden-variety postdoctoral fellowship award. NRSA allows us to provide up to five years of support for predoctoral NRSA, which can be expanded to six years in the case of dual-degree MD/PhD students and others in that dual degree track, and up to three years of postdoctoral research training support.

Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service Awards

Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service Awards

Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service Awards

×
There are constraints and requirements that applicants and appointees of NRSAs have. It's a full-time commitment with a recognition that few among us work only a forty-hour week, but that's the base requirement. You need to be a US citizen or permanent resident. The NRSAs provide a stipend, partial tuition support, self or family health insurance coverage, and a small institutional allowance. I told you about the limitations and the aggregate number of years predoc versus postdoc.

F32s: Individual Postdoctoral Fellowships

F32s: Individual Postdoctoral Fellowships

F32s: Individual Postdoctoral Fellowships

×
The current fiscal year 2013 stipend levels for postdocs are noted here. It is set at one level for predocs, regardless of your experience level. For postdocs it modulates upward from $42k being the base, up to $55k, depending on your years of relevant postdoc experience. Plus an institutional allowance.

Review Criteria for Fellowships

Review Criteria for Fellowships

Review Criteria for Fellowships

×
What are the review criteria for fellowship applications? Your strength as a candidate and appropriateness. Your sponsor or your mentor. The training environment at both the laboratory and departmental or institutional level. The scientific and technical merit of your training plan, your proposal. And of course training potential.

Historical Guiding Principles and Practices of NIDCD NRSA Program

Historical Guiding Principles and Practices of NIDCD NRSA Program

Historical Guiding Principles and Practices of NIDCD NRSA Program

×
Here's some information on the historical background of the NIDCD NRSA program and some of our underlying philosophy. Again, this is representative of our Institute, not necessarily the approach that other Institutes have always taken. We, the NIDCD, consider the fellowship our primary vehicle for supporting dissertation stage predocs and postdocs among the PhDs who are scientists. Of course MDs and AuDs can have postdoc support as well, but it's primarily geared towards the PhD and post-PhD sector.
Our institutional training grant is our primary vehicle for pre-dissertation PhD students, new and recent postdocs who are not quite ready, they don't have enough grounding experience to write a competitive F32 application, for postdocs who may be transitioning from other fields of science into our own, and health professional trainees, meaning MDs or clinical PhDs or other health professional doctoral degrees who are involved in that training process in a postdoc capacity, whose training tracks are not fully compatible in most cases with writing an individual fellowship. For instance medical residents who get accepted on a research track in a clinical department that has a T32 program specifically for medical residents, would be an example of where the T32 program is critical. There are other examples as well.

Historical Guiding Principles and Practices of NIDCD NRSA Program

Historical Guiding Principles and Practices of NIDCD NRSA Program

Historical Guiding Principles and Practices of NIDCD NRSA Program

×
Through a wonderful partnership that we've enjoyed at the NIDCD between our scientific review branch and our division of scientific programs, we have been able to, since 2001, expedite the process of institute-based fellowship review so that we can make earlier funding decisions. And applicants who were not funded but are given encouragement to revise and resubmit can do so readily and often without skipping a review round.

NIDCD Individual Fellowship Success Rate

NIDCD Individual Fellowship Success Rate

NIDCD Individual Fellowship Success Rate

×
Here are our fellowship success rates over the recent years. Notice the column on your right, submitted versus awarded, and the success rate is the ratio of those two. For FY13, we at the NIDCD have held at a success rate of just over 40%. This is better than the overall NIH 27%. Of course, it is going to be variable across individual Institutes, but I can tell you that our success rate for fellowships is among the highest at the NIH.

NIDCD F32 Application Success Rates

NIDCD F32 Application Success Rates

NIDCD F32 Application Success Rates

×
Specifically the postdoc fellowship (F32), at least this last year, has a higher success rate of about 48%. We've been maintaining around 40% to 50% in selected years, although for reasons we still don't understand 2012 we took a nosedive dip, so it's difficult to speak about trends over the last few years. This is going to be variable.
The bottom line is send us your meritorious F32 applications if you are a strong candidate. We can frankly fund more of them, even within all the funding constraints we live with, than we are currently funding. So that my motivational message of encouragement. The success rate is very encouraging.

NIDCD Individual Fellowship and T32 Trainee Outcomes Summary

NIDCD Individual Fellowship and T32 Trainee Outcomes Summary

NIDCD Individual Fellowship and T32 Trainee Outcomes Summary

×
I direct you to the bottom two lines here specifically. This is just a quick comparison of the outcomes of our individual F32 funded awardees in recent years, versus our T32 postdocs. Notice how almost 50% of our F32s have applied for subsequent support in the form of an R03; an R15 which is an AREA grant, which we'll touch on ever so briefly; an R29 which no longer exists but was kind of a specialty form of the R01; or an R01. Of whose who apply, notice that 70% were awarded, for an overall award rate for F32 awardees of a subsequent research grant of 33% -- a third of them got funded. As opposed to the success rate of our institutional T32 awardees. Of course, there are hybrids here. So we have many T32 trainees who also went on to their own fellowships. So this is just looking at those who are in either one mechanism versus the other, but there are certainly hybrids in there.

Subsequent RPG Awards of NIDCD F32 Awardees

Subsequent RPG Awards of NIDCD F32 Awardees

Subsequent RPG Awards of NIDCD F32 Awardees

×
This shows you RPGs or research project grant awards of our NIDCD F32 awardees, divided across R03s and R01s versus some of those other mechanisms.

Training and Award Histories of NIDCD FY09-11 Early-Stage Investigators (ESIs)

Training and Award Histories of NIDCD FY09-11 Early-Stage Investigators (ESIs)

Training and Award Histories of NIDCD FY09-11 Early-Stage Investigators (ESIs)

×
This makes the point that training histories of recent NIDCD early-stage investigators are quite variable. It is interesting that over 20% of these folks have had a prior F32 award and a similar number a fellowship appointment. Just over 40% have had a prior R03, that tells you something about the R03. Indeed a third of them have had no prior NIH award or postdoc T32 traineeship. So, there is not one path for all. There is a lot of room for individual expression.

Outcome of 2012 NIDCD Research Training Workshop

Outcome of 2012 NIDCD Research Training Workshop

Outcome of 2012 NIDCD Research Training Workshop

×
In 2012, we did a training workshop to assess our priorities and walk away with some outcomes. And we walked away with a very strong message -- that the F32 is worth capitalizing on. It is very facilitative of launching an R01 follow-up and we want to augment our F32 portfolio.
Transition to the Independent Investigator Career Stage: Mentored K-Awards

NIDCD Mentored Clinician-Investigator Career Development Awards

NIDCD Mentored Clinician-Investigator Career Development Awards

NIDCD Mentored Clinician-Investigator Career Development Awards

×
Now, switching gears to our mentored clinician scientist awards, of which a number of you are quite interested. This is to take a junior-level faculty member in typically a clinical department, who has had substantive research experience, generally at least two years of some prior research experience and training going back even as early as undergraduate days. These are folks who have had some publication output, and are hired into a clinical department with the expectation that they are going to be clinician scientists. Ideally they are seeking to integrate clinical practice and research in dual-track careers.
These are generous awards in our Institute and a few the other Institutes as well. We provide up to $105k per year in salary contribution, which is a substantive contribution. So for PhDs who are not earning at that level we provide full salary support. We also provide up to $80k a year in research course, higher than most of the NIH Institutes are providing. In return we expect 75% minimum protected time for research, for three, four, and generally five years of funded period. So, this is a heavy-duty, prestigious, in-demand award that we invest heavily in because we found it to be efficacious to launch independent clinician scientists.

NIDCD Mentored Clinician-Investigator Career Development Awards

NIDCD Mentored Clinician-Investigator Career Development Awards

NIDCD Mentored Clinician-Investigator Career Development Awards

×
There are two flavors, as we touched on briefly. The K08 is for clinically trained individuals who are going on a basic research track, and the K23 is for the same type of person who is going into clinical or patient oriented research.

Pathways to Independence Award Program

Pathways to Independence Award Program

Pathways to Independence Award Program

×
K99 as I touched on earlier, is a complex dual-track award, meant primarily for very highly trained postdocs who are within four years of research experience, who can build a compelling case for the need and the value of an additional year or two of postdoc research training to cap off their postdoc experience and become significantly competitive to be able to land a tenure-track faculty position in the right place.
This is the only NIH K award that does not require US citizenship or permanent residency and indeed is applicable to our intramural program fellows as well.
Research Grant Awards for the New Investigator

NIDCD Small Grant R03

NIDCD Small Grant R03

NIDCD Small Grant R03

×
The NIDCD R03, our small grant, has gotten a lot of attention and enthusiasm over the years. This is different than the NIH-wide, what we call the parent R03. It supports small-scale research projects of transitioning postdocs and recent faculty members. You do need to be within seven years of your terminal doctoral degree, less years of clinical training, to be eligible for the NIDCD R03.

NIDCD Small Grant R03

NIDCD Small Grant R03

NIDCD Small Grant R03

×
This is a wonderful launch for a full scale R01, to provide that type of published preliminary data. It's a shorter application. It provides $100 thousand per year direct costs for three years. We review it within our Institute's scientific review branch. It is not percentiled but comes out with an impact priority score. It is easily, in most cases, transferable across institutions as you move on. It is well-suited to get experience with the NIH system, to increase, garner and publish your preliminary data gearing up for an R01 submission. And it's ideal for postdocs who have been through the critical period of training, but don't have a faculty position yet and are still in their mentor's research space -- they don't have their own research space yet.

Success of NIDCD RO3 PIs in Wining Subsequent R01 Funding

Success of NIDCD RO3 PIs in Wining Subsequent R01 Funding

Success of NIDCD RO3 PIs in Wining Subsequent R01 Funding

×
It's associated with a favorable outcome, as we touched on. As I mentioned over 50% of our R03 PIs who apply for a subsequent R01 do win one, as opposed to somewhat lower for new investigators without the benefit of that prior NIH funding.

NIH Definitions of New Investigator and Early-Stage Investigator

NIH Definitions of New Investigator and Early-Stage Investigator

NIH Definitions of New Investigator and Early-Stage Investigator

×
NIH definitions of an early-stage investigator (ESI) versus new investigator (NI). A new investigator has not yet had a substantial NIH grant, typically $100k per year or more.
An early stage investigator is a new investigative who is within ten years of completing their terminal doctoral degree less years of clinical training. The advantage of signing up at the front end, even before you put in an application and declaring yourself an ESI in the NIH system, is you are cordoned in a special group within an NIH study section and reviewed together with your peers, if you will, as opposed to more seasoned R01 investigators.

NIH Research R01 Grant

NIH Research R01 Grant

NIH Research R01 Grant

×
The R01 is, of course, the prize in our system. A sizable, either single PI or multiple PI award for an independent research project. These are typically $250 thousand per year or more. They can be $500 thousand in many cases, and they can be less than $250k as well. They are typically five-year awards. They are reviewed in the main in the Center for Scientific Review (CSR) in NIH study sections. You need sufficient, and often published, preliminary data to support your hypothesis and feasibility if you're coming in as an investigative team to mount one of these applications successfully.

Special Purpose NIH Research Grant Programs

Special Purpose NIH Research Grant Programs

Special Purpose NIH Research Grant Programs

×
There are some special purpose research project grant programs at the NIH. We touched ever so briefly on the AREA R15. This is the Academic Research Enhancement Award. This really depends on your institution. If you come from a small, typically predominantly undergraduate teaching institution that has limited federal funding, you can be declared eligible for this award. It depends on your institution. These are smaller-scale, three-year awards for $300 thousand. And they offer both research support and mentoring support or training support for undergraduate research experiences.
Our R21 exploratory developmental grant allows investigators to pursue a really novel idea that may be high-impact, maybe paradigm shifting, but has limited grounding in prior literature. It may be high impact, but often it is somewhat high risk. You need to demonstrate feasibility, but strictly speaking, you don't need conventional preliminary data beyond showing feasibility. It is most appropriate for proven, R01 level investigators. We generally do not recommend this as your port of entry for your first NIH research grant. It is not well suited, in most cases, to early-stage investigators. Prove yourself with an R01 record, and then this is your wishlist type of grant for a project you would like to spin off to, but it's not your primary source of support in most cases.

NIH Loan Repayment Program (LRP)

NIH Loan Repayment Program (LRP)

NIH Loan Repayment Program (LRP)

×
I need to say something about the NIH loan payment program (LRP), which comes in two flavors for most of our Institutes. The clinical research LRP and pediatric LRP. This is to enable US citizens and permanent residents who hold doctoral degrees and are engaged in either clinical research or pediatric research, to help them to repay their educational debt. So these awards are made specifically to the lending institution under contract. They provide typically two years of support. They can be renewed. There are some eligibility guidelines.

NIH Loan Repayment Program (LRP)

NIH Loan Repayment Program (LRP)

NIH Loan Repayment Program (LRP)

×
They are typically providing up to $35 thousand per year plus taxes, for up to two years, renewable.
Our success rate in the NIDCD is frankly among the lowest in the NIH. We do not give this program the priority that we give to our other programs because these are not necessarily NIH-funded researchers or individuals who will compete successfully. But rather it facilitates a pipeline for people in clinical research and patient oriented research. And frankly the efficacy and outcomes of the program are still unproven. But it is available and it's a very useful program. We have had clinician investigators, particularly in our otolaryngology sector and audiology sector, who have used this to great advantage.

Contact Us

Contact Us

Contact Us

×
My final message is: Please contact us.
Questions and Answers
So did I leave ten minutes for questions? I think that left twelve minutes that must be a record for me. So we'll take some questions and I'll depend on my staff colleagues to help.

Question: Could you elaborate a little more about the K01 and K25 award?

The K award is for junior and mid-career level investigators and used by a few of the NIH Institutes. We the NIDCD use this for primarily for basic scientists who are involved in fundamental research and are moving into clinical research or translational research within our discipline. So this could apply to a cognitive or developmental psychologist who is moving into patient oriented research, for instance, in language disorders. We also use it for mid-career clinically trained individuals who are beyond appropriateness and eligibility for our junior level K08 and K23 awards to receive mentored research training, although frankly in the latter group we haven't had any takers for that. So they are primarily individuals who may be trained in other disciplines or may be very basic scientists who are moving in a translational or clinical trajectory. It also provides three to five years of support. Our K25 is for quantitative scientists, often engineers, mathematicians, computer scientists, who have not had an established record, or any significant record of health-related research, or who are moving from those two areas or quantitative areas into health-related research.

Highlighting some of the recent changes related to eligibility.

Comments provided by Judith Cooper, NIDCD

For the R03, the small grant, we've had a recent change about eligibility. If you had a baby or if you were taking care of parents and it delayed your research trajectory, talk to program staff afterwards, because we made a little bit of a broadening of the seven years. With regard to the Ks, the career development, sometimes you folks have trouble finding a mentor at your own university. We just recently changed it so that maybe you can do something like Skyping your mentor or maybe doing something more modern, as well as maybe having an in-house mentor too. So that's changed and you may want to talk to Dan about that. And then the third thing was about loan repayment. In 2012/2013 we did have a very dismal success rate. I know for a fact that success rate is going up, so if you haven't applied for the coming year, don't let those percentages of success dissuade you from trying because I think it will be better.
ESIs, the early-stage investigators for the R01, if you have a similar situation, you take care of a family member, you had a baby, and your career trajectory went off track for a little bit, there is also a committee that gives you a little bit of extra time for an R01 submission -- because that one is for ten years. So if something happens in your ten years of eligibility after you get your PhD, you can appeal to the NIH and there's a committee that looks at those requests.

Question: I know one of my colleagues applied for the loan repayment in a recent couple years, as have many of our peers who were similarly at non-research institutions. Most commonly our teaching loads are 50%, which means that we have 40% research and 10% service and that makes us ineligible for the loan repayment. So I was just wondering if there's any thought about either accommodations or any wiggle room in that kind of policy.

I'm wondering, I used to coordinate the LRP program, but over the last year or two it's a colleague. But I'm wondering about whether teaching-related activities may go into the overall research commitment or not. There is that requirement of at least twenty hours per week of health-related research. In addition to the fiscal requirements of the program. We get a fair number of applicants of this program. It's not difficult for many to meet that requirement, although it does require planning in advance and on a more encouraging note, if you put together a strong application and have strong references you've got a solid chance for this award. It is reviewed in somewhat of a streamlined process. You don't get a conventional summary statement. You are selected and a fiscal survey is done to ensure that your indebtedness meets the requirements. It's a fairly friendly process and not a difficult application to put together. So it's well worth investigating.

Question: I have a question about LRP. What about someone who has an AuD and works as a research audiologist doing related research, who is a major collaborator, sometimes first author, but doesn't aim to be a PI. Are those people eligible?

Yes. You don't have to aim to be a PI or an NIH PI. You can be aiming to be a research collaborator or team scientist. Really it's meant to try to make the research trajectory path more attractive to people at the front end when they are in the critical stage of planning their careers in these areas. Pediatric research and patient-oriented research.

Question: I have a question about the K99/R00 mechanism. So the K99 seems pretty clear to me, that's the cap off of the postdoctoral experience. The R00 -- is that more like an R03, or how should I look at what that part is for? And applying for that, am I thinking of two lines of research, or one continuous? That part is a little unclear.

Think in terms of the overall research program from the postdoctoral period, carrying forth naturally, in a natural genesis and unraveling or rolling out of a research plan over the next five years. The way to cordon that out in an application, you've got an aggregate, let's say, of four to six specific research aims. And you designate a couple of those aims to be during the mentored period, when you do need the mentorship of perhaps new techniques and technologies in areas of science, as well as the facilities and resources and guidance of your mentor. While, once you strike out on your own and open up your new lab, you're continuing that line of research to the next level in an independent laboratory.
So it's really one continuum of a rolled out research program, rather than two discontinued phases that are pieced together. Bear in mind that the R00 phase is administratively reviewed in the Institute after the initial peer review where you are looking into your crystal ball at what you are going to be doing three, four years from now. So it doesn't have to be as well specified. But the purpose here is to try to facilitate the most brightest and most promising investigators to get their foot in the door, to get on the short list of a tenure-track faculty position, and hopefully win that position with the help of a promissory note they pull out from their pocket showing that NIH will provide them with $249 thousand total cost, which is not a lot of money, per year for two to three years of their initial faculty position, and thereby share the cost with the department of the startup package.

Question: On the K99/R00, do I already have to have the tenure-track position before I apply?

This is an area of major problem in our system. In large measure it relates to not only timing, but integrity at both ends -- at the applicant's end and then at the funding institute's end. Bear in mind that the purpose of this award is to facilitate independent researchers who need tenure-track faculty positions to get launched. It is not intended for your walk on water postdoc who has already been promised and consummated a faculty appointment maybe at the institution where they are doing a postdoc. Or maybe at another institution, and the chair of that department or someone else is telling them, "Well, why don't you compete for an NIH K99/R00, and this way, you know, you're much more attractive if you come to us with some support, but the position is yours."
We do not make awards to individuals who we know -- who inform us -- have won faculty positions. It is really intended for individuals who are at the critical search phase. So when they get the award they are searching for that coveted position, but they don't have it in the bag. At least, it's not consummated such that the award is meaningful.
The outcomes of this program, it's still fairly young, are not really known. All we really know from the NIH-wide data is it appears that these folks get faculty positions faster than those who don't. Indeed, I can tell you amongst basic scientists in the neurosciences, there are many departments that I've heard from who won't even interview a candidate for a coveted tenure-track position if they don't have an NIH K99. So this is not going to hit communication sciences and disorders, speech language pathology and audiology, otology, and neuro-otology, etc., the clinical disciplines. This is not going to be hitting those individuals, but in those other communities, it's almost become the standard in highly competitive environments.

Question: Thanks for presenting the outcomes data, those are great. I was wondering about the T32 data, that was kind of shocking, the outcomes on the T32 versus F32 data. I'm wondering if NIDCD is going to react to that in their funding levels for T32s given that there are quite a few aspiring and existing T32 directors in here.

A lot of people in the research community feel because of these data and our overall emphasis on individual fellowships that we are going to compromise or vanquish or move on from our T32 programs. We will not, at least in the foreseeable future, because of other information I presented. We really feel that program-based training programs, institutional training programs are very important for our newest doctoral students or postdocs who come from other disciplines and are health professional trainees. So we are keeping pretty much a steady funding level. At any point in time we have 30 to 33 T32s around the country. They tend to be fairly small, almost a third of them are otolaryngology focused. Others are speech language pathology and more audiology focused. The majority serve the broader basic science community relating to our mission area. We're going to keep the T32s with us, and again they interact and play well with individual fellowships such that we increasingly encourage T32 applicants and program directors. I'm dealing with that very hotly these days because our applications come in on May 25, as you may recall, so these are the folks who are contacting me as we speak. We encourage them to build in formal training plans to move their trainees predoc and postdoc, to nurture them and guide them in writing successful F31s and F32s. And that's done increasingly in our T32s that are continuing to maintain funding or a couple that come new to us through the door that we actually can launch. So both of them have a role, and we're not going to fund one to the exclusion of the other. However, when the funding gets tight, you can be sure that we're going to give particular emphasis to our F32s.

Question: I had a quick follow up about the K99. You described it as a late stage postdoctoral transition, but also something to bring to the job market. I'm just curious, lining these up time-course wise, when should you be applying if that's something you want to have in hand when you're applying for faculty jobs.

Generally our guidance is, if you are doing a postdoctoral fellowship, and most people in communication sciences and disorders who do that are typically going to be limiting that to maybe at most three years. Under those circumstances, the K99 generally is not the program of choice. We would much more recommend the individual fellowship, the F32, as your point of entry to winning a faculty position or its equivalent in a nonacademic environment and launching an R01. It's an efficacious approach. The K99 is meant primarily for more fundamental science type of PhD postdocs who are poised and going to be in practice doing three to five years of postdoctoral training, such that they have to come in before four years of experience. That's a new NIH restriction it used to be five years, but they are typically coming in during late in their second year and into the middle of their third year. So it's not as applicable to this community, as if I was speaking at the Society for Neurosciences in front of a group of basic auditory physiologists or chemosensory neurobiologists, who are in basic science labs. But there are going to be individual people, including at least one individual coming to mind who Doctor Mario Svirsky mentored from this community, who have successfully launched a K99/R00. There have been a few examples from the CSD community, but it is predominately in the more basic science domain where longer postdocs are pursued. Thank you.

Congratulations, Gratitude & Kudos!

Congratulations, Gratitude & Kudos!

Congratulations, Gratitude & Kudos!

×

Outcomes of LfS Protégés

Outcomes of LfS Protégés

Outcomes of LfS Protégés

×

Rough Seas

Rough Seas

Rough Seas

×

Smooth Sailing

Smooth Sailing

Smooth Sailing

×

Your Keys to Success

Your Keys to Success

Your Keys to Success

×

Facts of Life for Aspiring and Emerging Health Sciences Independent Investigators

Facts of Life for Aspiring and Emerging Health Sciences Independent Investigators

Facts of Life for Aspiring and Emerging Health Sciences Independent Investigators

×

The Research Pipeline in CSD

The Research Pipeline in CSD

The Research Pipeline in CSD

×

The Research Pipeline in CSD

The Research Pipeline in CSD

The Research Pipeline in CSD

×

NIDCD Provisions for New and Emerging Investigators

NIDCD Provisions for New and Emerging Investigators

NIDCD Provisions for New and Emerging Investigators

×

NIDCD Provisions for New and Early-Stage (ESI) Investigators

NIDCD Provisions for New and Early-Stage (ESI) Investigators

NIDCD Provisions for New and Early-Stage (ESI) Investigators

×

New NIH-Wide Policy

New NIH-Wide Policy

New NIH-Wide Policy

×

NIDCD Budget and Success Rates

NIDCD Budget and Success Rates

NIDCD Budget and Success Rates

×

Challenges of Today's Academic Biomedical Investigator

Challenges of Today's Academic Biomedical Investigator

Challenges of Today's Academic Biomedical Investigator

×

Core Competencies of Successful Independent NIH-Funded Researchers

Core Competencies of Successful Independent NIH-Funded Researchers

Core Competencies of Successful Independent NIH-Funded Researchers

×

Core Competencies of Successful Independent NIH-Funded Researchers

Core Competencies of Successful Independent NIH-Funded Researchers

Core Competencies of Successful Independent NIH-Funded Researchers

×

If You Seek a Career as a CSD Researcher, Get Mentored!

If You Seek a Career as a CSD Researcher, Get Mentored!

If You Seek a Career as a CSD Researcher, Get Mentored!

×

Where Is Research Conducted?

Where Is Research Conducted?

Where Is Research Conducted?

×

National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders

National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders

National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders

×

FY13 NIDCD Extramural Research Project Grant Portfolio

FY13 NIDCD Extramural Research Project Grant Portfolio

FY13 NIDCD Extramural Research Project Grant Portfolio

×

Other NIH Institutes Supporting Research and Research Training Relevant to CSD

Other NIH Institutes Supporting Research and Research Training Relevant to CSD

Other NIH Institutes Supporting Research and Research Training Relevant to CSD

×

NIDCD Research Mission in Human Language and Communication

NIDCD Research Mission in Human Language and Communication

NIDCD Research Mission in Human Language and Communication

×

NICHD Research Mission in Human Language and Communication

NICHD Research Mission in Human Language and Communication

NICHD Research Mission in Human Language and Communication

×

NIH Funding Mechanisms

NIH Funding Mechanisms

NIH Funding Mechanisms

×

NIH Funding Mechanisms

NIH Funding Mechanisms

NIH Funding Mechanisms

×

Before Submitting an Application

Before Submitting an Application

Before Submitting an Application

×

Before Submitting an Application

Before Submitting an Application

Before Submitting an Application

×

NIH Extramural Staff

NIH Extramural Staff

NIH Extramural Staff

×

Types of NIDCD Research Training and Career Development Awards

Types of NIDCD Research Training and Career Development Awards

Types of NIDCD Research Training and Career Development Awards

×

NRSA Program Goals

NRSA Program Goals

NRSA Program Goals

×

NIDCD-Supported Individual NRSA Fellowship Mechanisms

NIDCD-Supported Individual NRSA Fellowship Mechanisms

NIDCD-Supported Individual NRSA Fellowship Mechanisms

×

Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service Awards

Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service Awards

Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service Awards

×

F32s: Individual Postdoctoral Fellowships

F32s: Individual Postdoctoral Fellowships

F32s: Individual Postdoctoral Fellowships

×

Review Criteria for Fellowships

Review Criteria for Fellowships

Review Criteria for Fellowships

×

Historical Guiding Principles and Practices of NIDCD NRSA Program

Historical Guiding Principles and Practices of NIDCD NRSA Program

Historical Guiding Principles and Practices of NIDCD NRSA Program

×

Historical Guiding Principles and Practices of NIDCD NRSA Program

Historical Guiding Principles and Practices of NIDCD NRSA Program

Historical Guiding Principles and Practices of NIDCD NRSA Program

×

NIDCD Individual Fellowship Success Rate

NIDCD Individual Fellowship Success Rate

NIDCD Individual Fellowship Success Rate

×

NIDCD F32 Application Success Rates

NIDCD F32 Application Success Rates

NIDCD F32 Application Success Rates

×

NIDCD Individual Fellowship and T32 Trainee Outcomes Summary

NIDCD Individual Fellowship and T32 Trainee Outcomes Summary

NIDCD Individual Fellowship and T32 Trainee Outcomes Summary

×

Subsequent RPG Awards of NIDCD F32 Awardees

Subsequent RPG Awards of NIDCD F32 Awardees

Subsequent RPG Awards of NIDCD F32 Awardees

×

Training and Award Histories of NIDCD FY09-11 Early-Stage Investigators (ESIs)

Training and Award Histories of NIDCD FY09-11 Early-Stage Investigators (ESIs)

Training and Award Histories of NIDCD FY09-11 Early-Stage Investigators (ESIs)

×

Outcome of 2012 NIDCD Research Training Workshop

Outcome of 2012 NIDCD Research Training Workshop

Outcome of 2012 NIDCD Research Training Workshop

×

NIDCD Mentored Clinician-Investigator Career Development Awards

NIDCD Mentored Clinician-Investigator Career Development Awards

NIDCD Mentored Clinician-Investigator Career Development Awards

×

NIDCD Mentored Clinician-Investigator Career Development Awards

NIDCD Mentored Clinician-Investigator Career Development Awards

NIDCD Mentored Clinician-Investigator Career Development Awards

×

Pathways to Independence Award Program

Pathways to Independence Award Program

Pathways to Independence Award Program

×

NIDCD Small Grant R03

NIDCD Small Grant R03

NIDCD Small Grant R03

×

NIDCD Small Grant R03

NIDCD Small Grant R03

NIDCD Small Grant R03

×

Success of NIDCD RO3 PIs in Wining Subsequent R01 Funding

Success of NIDCD RO3 PIs in Wining Subsequent R01 Funding

Success of NIDCD RO3 PIs in Wining Subsequent R01 Funding

×

NIH Definitions of New Investigator and Early-Stage Investigator

NIH Definitions of New Investigator and Early-Stage Investigator

NIH Definitions of New Investigator and Early-Stage Investigator

×

NIH Research R01 Grant

NIH Research R01 Grant

NIH Research R01 Grant

×

Special Purpose NIH Research Grant Programs

Special Purpose NIH Research Grant Programs

Special Purpose NIH Research Grant Programs

×

NIH Loan Repayment Program (LRP)

NIH Loan Repayment Program (LRP)

NIH Loan Repayment Program (LRP)

×

NIH Loan Repayment Program (LRP)

NIH Loan Repayment Program (LRP)

NIH Loan Repayment Program (LRP)

×

Contact Us

Contact Us

Contact Us

×