A few days ago I learned that a grant proposal of mine to an agency that routinely uses panel reviews would be declined. What makes me feel even crummier is that my proposal was ranked N+1, where N is the number of grants that will be funded (N is also a very small positive integer). So, close but no cigar. The reviews were good, but obviously could have been better, and were in the usual vein of calling for tightening, focusing, distilling, purifying the idea and the message... The program manager was very encouraging about revising and resubmitting, which is what I intend to do, but still...
When I think about grant proposals, I sometimes think about a very good friend of mine, whose pastime is building custom-configuration computers; he really enjoys it and is very good at it. I asked him why he doesn't try to cash in on it or at least go into some type of consulting, because he seems lukewarm (at best) about his actual job and very passionate about his pastime. He answered along the lines of "It's only fun as long as it's a hobby. It would no longer be fun if I actually had to do it to get paid."
For an academic scientist or engineer, writing grants would be the most enjoyable thing in the world if only it weren't so darn important to actually get the money.
When you think of it, writing a proposal means you get to immerse yourself completely in research, learn a lot of new things, ask exciting and far-reaching questions, brainstorm, dream big, and distill your thoughts and ideas through writing. As an added bonus (in my opinion, at least) writing a proposal gives you an excuse to drop all menial work and cancel unwanted - ahem, unnecessary - meetings without feeling guilty (everyone is very sympathetic when you say "I have a proposal deadline"). For me, writing a grant is a guilt-free exile into what I love best -- research.
But...
One's career and the livelihood of one's students and postdocs hinges on the success in getting grants (Professor in Training has a nice recent post on the challenges of grant writing). Funding rates are depressingly low (in my division at the agency above the funding rate is a tiny bit over 10%). This means an average faculty writes a large number of grants to get one funded; of course, I am not assuming grant awards are completely stochastic -- we all know to correlate merit with fundability --- but the number of grants that are competitive is larger by a factor of 2 or 3 than the number of funded ones; there just aren't enough funds around... Depending on your research area, some agencies do have significantly higher funding rates than the agency mentioned above that all of scientists and engineers apply to, but you have to become part of the in-crowd first.
I remember how helpless one feels on tenure track before getting that first grant. The world of funding agencies seems unpredictable and hostile, and you are wondering how long and how thin you can stretch those start-up funds...
Once you have actually received a few grants, the world of funding agencies still seems unpredictable and hostile, but there is no time to rest. Now that you have received some money, you realize that you are actually constantly running out of it and need to keep writing: there is always some grant expiring, or about to expire next year, and the student supported on it is midway through their PhD... One could say "Well, your students could always TA" but that is not a universal truth, only in departments that teach large service courses. I dread becoming one of the, admittedly very few, faculty in my department who have not had research support (and thus, any summer salary) for a number of years. They once did, but now they don't and likely never will again, because they stopped trying. I am not sure why certain people completely cease to write grants once they are tenured, but I don't think it's because they are not driven. Rather, my guess is that it has to do with disillusionment and hopelessness, as the wells of funding in certain fields dry up.
I think the only way to keep going at it -- writing many, many grants -- is to try to fully savor the pleasant, creative part of grant writing, and try to minimize the damage to your soul by the unpleasant parts (a.k.a. being declined). I believe that if a person finds absolutely no fun and no enjoyment in the grant writing process, then getting a faculty position in science or engineering may not be worthwhile.
Lastly, grant writing with colleagues can be very enjoyable, with lots of exciting brainstorms if the collaboration is a good one. An important added benefit is that you have someone to commiserate with when the grant is declined, and someone to celebrate with when it's finally funded.
12 comments:
Sorry to hear that.
Next time, yours will surely be "x<N", even if lim N tends to "0".
Cheers!
Neo
P.S. Is that the reason for your "disappearance"? I was beginning to wonder what happened to you. :P
I wonder if it would help to think about the success/failure of grants like the success/failure of experiments. Obviously, if you're an idiot, a sloppy scientists, etc., your experiments will fail; but as we all know, well-designed and carried out experiments can fail, too. A well-written grant can be declined based on the whims of a few reviewers.
It seems like all scientists should have the tenacity to withstand rejection, it just gets a bit personal when another person (or people) is making the decisions.
I agree with the general sentiment that grant-writing is one of the most enjoyable parts of the job, except for the pressure involved in the ultimate success/failure of the grant. To add another aspect that ruins what should be an exhilarating experinece (if the low funding levels weren't enough to do it), the turnaround time is awful. It is agony to sit and wait for months upon months, getting a few scores here, a few critiques there, all the while never knowing if the proposal will be funded. You have to be very Zen about it, and "let go" of the proposal once it's out the door, but that's really hard when your career is on the line!
GMP, I totally agree on the "fun" part of writing proposals. I recently finished my last of the brand new proposals, and the next round will be mostly revisions and updates. The constant revisions and resubmits are not much fun, but every job has its thankless parts, even research.
I look at it a bit like the academic job search--getting to the top 25% or so is your responsibility. The last 25% is luck (personal scientific "taste" of the reviewers, how many proposals in that subarea made the top 25%, other random selection criteria, etc). The only way to "overcome" the luck factor is to submit as much as possible. And that makes all the fun stuff happen!
FWIW, I agree with you about how the younger deadwood became deadwood--they burn out on the futility of it all. Because of this, I think it can be good to be a bit ADHD about research areas, because you never really depend too much on any one pot.
@ Neo:
Is that the reason for your "disappearance"? I was beginning to wonder what happened to you. :P
:) Thanks for your concern, Neo! Actually, last week was just very busy, we had a long program review and several visitors that occupied a lot of my and my collaborators' time, and as it always happens, that's exactly the week when several other deadlines were (conferences, white papers). So no worries, my disappearance was simply due to extreme shortage of time. I cannot stay depressed about any given grant for too long; just get back to work, as there is usually a ton of work to do.
Casey,
Thanks for the comment! I don't think one ever completely stops caring when having work evaluated by peers, either in paper or grant review, no matter how seasoned one is...
Melissa,
Oh yes... The agonizing wait -- I think that's probably the worst aspect of the whole process. The turnaround time is really long. Letting go of a proposal once it's out is certainly a very good approach; while I'm no master of Zen, simply having a lot of other things piled up and waiting to be done does take one's mind off a proposal...
Prodigal,
Totally agree on the versatility. That's the only way to spread out the risk, sort of like saving for a comfortable retirement (put some money on savings, some in stocks, some in bonds, etc.) Most faculty also balance single PI grants with being a PI or co-PI on a multi-investigator grants, so there are have various levels of investment (time and emotion) in different grants, and many more oportunities for funding...
Sorry to hear about your grant.
Nice analogy with your friend's hobby and very sensible point about savoring the good aspects of grant writing as the whole process can be sort of stressful.
Thanks, Aurora.
Sorry to hear, GMP. But it's a great sign your PM is encouraging you, hopefully that means they not only really want to fund you but will.
The best way to get all "zen" about your proposal once you submit it is to start working on another one!
Did you hear this?
http://journals.iucr.org/e/issues/2010/01/00/me0406/
I was shocked!
Neo
FCS, thank for your thoughts! Fingers crossed for the next round.
CPP, I completely agree. Nothing cures obsessing about a specific piece of work better than more/other work!
Neo, unfortunately scientific misconduct/fraud does happen. Check out a related article in a recent issue of APS News.
GMP, thank you for the link.
After all scientists, engineers, judges, doctors on whose honesty and integrity, the survival of society depends,are also humans. The fact that scientific misconduct/fraud does happen, only relfects the behivour of human society at large.
It reinforces the fundamental philosophy of science- dont accept anything without questioning/ experimentation. And I still have great respect for academic and research community- with fundamental philosophy in mind.
Neo
Post a Comment