![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I just got off the phone with my Program Officer at NIMH. He doesn't think my grant is going to be funded this time around. He says that I got a great score for the first submission... but I should prepare to resubmit. I more or less expected that to happen, so I'm not crushed.
The part of the discussion I didn't expect had to do with when I should resubmit. There are three deadlines per year for AIDS-related applications: January 7, May 7, September 7. The review cycle is such that the earliest possible start date is about six months in the future; for my January submission, I proposed a start date of July 1.
My PO said that, given the level of the critiques I need to respond to, he would normally encourage me to reapply at the next deadline: May 7. That is totally what I had expected to do. However, as I've mentioned before, NIH has completely revamped their application structure. I'll need to substantially modify my application - including cutting the length in half. And, my PO suggested, that might take me more than a month.
We talked about the pros and cons for a while. He does say that May is "not out of reach." Advantages of trying for May: (1) I know myself to be a fast and good writer. (2) It might be politically difficult for me here at work to let a deadline go by without a submission. (3) The sooner I resubmit, the more likely it is that I'll get the same primary reviewers - who basically liked my idea, and who saw my longer more-detailed initial application and will know that any areas that I have to skim over to meet the new page limits did at one point exist in more fleshed-out form.
Advantages of waiting: (1) These days you only get two chances to submit a grant. (It used to be three.) If I don't get funded this time around, I can never resubmit this application or anything "substantively identical" to it. So it might make sense to take more time to get this submission perfect. (2) The new application format is going to shake things up, and it would probably be safer to not be one of the first people reviewed under the new system, by peer reviewers who are suddenly getting half as much detail as they expected. (3) My work pace preparing the resubmission would be substantially more humane.
I have written to my external mentor, and am drafting a letter to my collaborators on the grant to get their input.
The part of the discussion I didn't expect had to do with when I should resubmit. There are three deadlines per year for AIDS-related applications: January 7, May 7, September 7. The review cycle is such that the earliest possible start date is about six months in the future; for my January submission, I proposed a start date of July 1.
My PO said that, given the level of the critiques I need to respond to, he would normally encourage me to reapply at the next deadline: May 7. That is totally what I had expected to do. However, as I've mentioned before, NIH has completely revamped their application structure. I'll need to substantially modify my application - including cutting the length in half. And, my PO suggested, that might take me more than a month.
We talked about the pros and cons for a while. He does say that May is "not out of reach." Advantages of trying for May: (1) I know myself to be a fast and good writer. (2) It might be politically difficult for me here at work to let a deadline go by without a submission. (3) The sooner I resubmit, the more likely it is that I'll get the same primary reviewers - who basically liked my idea, and who saw my longer more-detailed initial application and will know that any areas that I have to skim over to meet the new page limits did at one point exist in more fleshed-out form.
Advantages of waiting: (1) These days you only get two chances to submit a grant. (It used to be three.) If I don't get funded this time around, I can never resubmit this application or anything "substantively identical" to it. So it might make sense to take more time to get this submission perfect. (2) The new application format is going to shake things up, and it would probably be safer to not be one of the first people reviewed under the new system, by peer reviewers who are suddenly getting half as much detail as they expected. (3) My work pace preparing the resubmission would be substantially more humane.
I have written to my external mentor, and am drafting a letter to my collaborators on the grant to get their input.
