Neuroscience Research Award with a Difference
Like most research grants, Einstein's new Junior Investigator Neuroscience Research Award (JINRA) offers funding and professional recognition. Unlike most research grants, "it gives Einstein Ph.D. students and postdocs experience not only in writing grants but in reviewing them," said Samantha Kee, co-chair of the Neuroscience Graduate Student Organization, who spearheaded the organization of JINRA.
Dr. Pablo Castillo leads students and postdocs in a study section-like peer review process of grant proposals submitted for Einstein’s Junior Investigator Neuroscience Research AwardFamiliarity with the grant process is of great value in today's competitive grant environment. In recent years, the National Institutes of Health, the largest grant supporter at medical schools, has provided funding among only the top 10 percent of proposals they review.
"To improve our future grant applicants' chances of success when they submit a proposal, we've instituted a modest one-year research grant and accompanying training in scientific communication, grantsmanship and the peer-review process," explained Dr. Kamran Khodakhah, professor and chair of the Dominick P. Purpura Department of Neuroscience and a Harold and Muriel Block Chair in Neuroscience, who conceived the idea. The department established the program under the aegis of the Einstein Montefiore Brain Sciences Initiative.
The process began earlier this year with a call to all Einstein Ph.D. students and postdocs for grant proposals on a neuroscience topic. After a training session directed by Dr. Pablo Castillo, professor of neuroscience and also a Harold and Muriel Block Chair, students and postdocs who did not submit proposals acted as reviewers. They evaluated the proposals, provided preliminary scores and critiques, and met one final time to discuss the selected proposals in an NIH-like study section held in the Rose F. Kennedy Center. The proposals were initially ranked based on preliminary scores, and then thoroughly discussed at the meeting.
"This process will help you see yourself from the other side," said Dr. Castillo, who served as the meeting chair. At the meeting, he reminded the students of the scoring system: 1 to 3 indicates a high-impact proposal that is exceptionally strong with few or no weaknesses; 4 to 6 is for a strong medium-impact proposal with some weaknesses; 7 to 9 is for a proposal whose weaknesses outweigh its strengths.
"All applications must receive a fair, thorough evaluation," Dr. Castillo counseled the students. "Be objective. But also, based on what you hear from the other reviewers at the study section, try to be flexible and willing to change course"—which they did. One contested proposal started with assessments ranging from 3 to 7. After much discussion, in which the more critical reviewers convinced the other evaluators of omissions and technical issues, the group settled on 5s and 6s.
The process was not just an exercise. It yielded $5,000 grant awards to the two top proposals, from Dr. Randy Stout, a postdoc in the laboratory of Dr. David Spray, and from collaborators Steven Cook and Dr. Leo Tang, graduate student in the laboratory from the laboratory of Dr. Scott Emmons and a postdoc in the laboratory of Dr. Hannes Buelow, respectively.
"It was important that the process be open to different departments, and the departments of genetics, pathology, and computational and systems biology as well as neuroscience did indeed submit grants," said Dr. Khodakhah, also a professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences and in the Saul R. Korey Department of Neurology. He intends the program to be an annual one and will showcase it for the neuroscience department's National Institutes of Health training grant application.
A new call for proposals will go out in 2017. The award will be open to any Einstein Ph.D. student or postdoc who is interested in exploring new ideas in neuroscience.
Posted on: Wednesday, June 29, 2016