next »

[mozman]

Read here:
http://chronicle.com/jobs/news/2008/06/2008060201c/careers.html

My main question is WHY???  I am in the middle of NIH grant review hell right now, with the program officer breathing down my neck toy get these uploaded (which is why I am procrastinating by posting on the board).

Why why oh why would you do this to yourself??

A good secondary question would be why did I do this to MYSELF??

As with many things in life and science, I have no freak'n idea.

mm

[larryc]

Why? Are you serious? Because it is our professional responsibility to do so. If bright people don't volunteer to rate grant applications, dummies will do so. Do you want your future proposal read by a dummy?

[testingthewaters]

The same reason it's a good idea to be a reviewer for journals. For the reason larryc notes (although I have my suspicions that one of my last reviewers is a dummy, but I guess everyone always thinks that).

If that's too far into altruism, the do it because it makes you a better grant writer. After you've seen the same mistake a few times and it irritated the heck out of you, you pay attention next time you write one yourself.

But I'm guessing the OP already figured that out, since (s)he is already reviewing.

[mozman]

Why? Are you serious?

Not really, this was more a pity post than a serious post.  I know the advantages of reviewing.  But it is getting to the point where I feel that NIH is unfairly targeting junior faculty to serve on study section panels.

NIH grant are 25 pages.  It takes at least 4-5 hours to really review a grant in a fair and useful manner.  I got assigned 11 grants this time.  That is approximately 44-55 hours of review time, or an entire week where I get no work done.

I agreed to this, I know.  Since I have NIH funding, I felt obligated.  Also, I have a particular expertise that is under-represented on the section right now.  Still, this is a major thing for me since I an untenured.

Do you want your future proposal read by a dummy?

Been there, done that...

mm

[onestep]

A good secondary question would be why did I do this to MYSELF??

Too funny.  I had asked myself this very question during the last review cycle.  You weren't the only person talking about the number of grants.  It seems like everyone's review burden has gone up.  The other "ding" is the half week or so you lose flying out for the study section.   I'm sending pity your way!

[starfleet_grad]

I reviewed a grant for the first time this year, and it was brutal. mozman is right--I probably spent a good 4 hours on just one, and I so desperately wanted to give a positive review but just couldn't. OTOH, doing this review also forced me to flex my analytical muscle some. The proposal I read happened to have some design issues, and it forced my to dig deep into my research methods again. If nothing else, reading proposals helps me stay on top of on certain aspects of my field.

[larryc]

Mozman, are you being compensated for your time?

I reviewed NEH history grant proposals once. They flew me to D.C. for the meeting and paid me a stipend as well. It was hard work but I felt I was well-treated.

[mozman]

I am in the DC area, so no free flight for me.  I get a small stipend (something like $200), which doesn't begin to be worth it on an hourly basis (comes out to about 1-2 dollars an hour by my calculations).

A s said, this was mostly a pity post.  I know why I am doing it (experience, duty, looks good for my promotion bid etc...), but it is easier to think of the higher principles when I am finished rather than in the thick of it.

mm

[polly_mer]

At least you are reviewing grants from institutes that provide compensation.

I have done some state level reviews (not all of them from states in which I was living) and all I got for my 4-6 hours of effort per proposal was a "Thanks.  How about next year?"  Um, no.  Yes, I have a professional responsibility, particularly because few people do have my expertise, but I have a definite limit to what I am willing to do for free.

[mirandaf]

Years ago, I was a grant reviewer for a batch of proposals submitted in response to one solicitation. I believe I was compensated $800 (~1999 or 2000, perhaps). I got to work from home. It was pretty interesting, and food for thought re: proposals I've since worked on. Actually, of the 10 or 12 we reviewed, only 2 were really good from what I remember. I'd definitely do it again.

[inthelab]

NIH targeting junior faculty? You have to have an RO1 to be on a standing study section.

[mozman]

NIH targeting junior faculty? You have to have an RO1 to be on a standing study section.

Number one, this isn't strictly true - I know many people who have never held an RO1 who have been on study section (such as government or military researchers who can't legally hold NIH grants etc...).

Number two, there are junior faculty who have RO1 grants.

Number three, most "junior" faculty who serve on study sections are ad-hoc rather than standing members.  The rules for standing members don't apply - ad-hoc membership is up to the discretion of the SRO.

mm

[inthelab]

1) Government researchers can certainly hold NIH grants (I have a 5/8 VA appointment and I have an NIH grant through my university).  Foreigners can get NIH grants.
2) Go the the CSR website and read the criteria for appointment to a standing study section (which review the vast majority of RO1 submissions, i.e., the vast majority of submissions).  The same criteria do not hold for special-emphasis panels.  If an SRA perceives that additional expertise is required for a study section meeting, he/she can bring in ad hoc members who do not fit the standard criteria.
3) I am not eligible to serve on a standing study section, being that my NIH grant is an R21. I have served on special-emphasis panels and I am currently on a DoD study section.  At my university (a post-graduate health sciences university), junior faculty are not serving on study section.  However, mid-career faculty are serving on study sections.