I don't know if this has been posted before but I wanted to share. Initial F30 applications are now restricted to students in the first 48 months of matriculation in MD/PhD programs. Not sure exactly when this change occurred but I wanted to encourage students to apply before this deadline. A little frustrating for myself having just passed that mark but best of luck to everyone who applies.
Change in F30 Rules
- Thread starter sixSigma
- Start date
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2007
- Messages
- 2,263
- Reaction score
- 4,143
It was released early this year around Feb. However, after PDs raised concerns given the timeline, NIH allowed exceptions to this new rule for April '14 and August '14 cycles.
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2014
- Messages
- 265
- Reaction score
- 211
How does this make sense? Students apply before they are in the lab?
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2014
- Messages
- 22
- Reaction score
- 8
48 months after matriculation should be after about 2 yrs in the lab, depending on the program.
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2007
- Messages
- 2,263
- Reaction score
- 4,143
The grant mechanism is now intending to fund ~ 2 years of graduate research and 2 years of medical clerkships. Total funding from NIH training support is limited to 6 years (including MSTP or other NIH T32 discipline specific training grants). The training plan is as critical (or more) as the proposed science. The quality of the mentor and candidate are the major determinants.
See: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/peer/f_awards/f30_guide_for_reviewers.pdf
No, the idea that you apply for a F30 after 4 years in the lab, so that there is at least a paper from the candidate about the research, and feasibility of the project is proven, does not make sense. What training is been proposed at that point? The F grant mechanism is about training not about an award for somebody who was productive in the lab.
See: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/peer/f_awards/f30_guide_for_reviewers.pdf
No, the idea that you apply for a F30 after 4 years in the lab, so that there is at least a paper from the candidate about the research, and feasibility of the project is proven, does not make sense. What training is been proposed at that point? The F grant mechanism is about training not about an award for somebody who was productive in the lab.
While I do agree with you that the candidate/mentor quality and the description of a applicant-specific training plan is imperative, in my experience the vast majority of applicants are good and so are their mentors so it does end up coming down to the research proposal (FWIW I submitted my F30 Spring of my first year of PhD, it didn't get funded, resubmitted it the next cycle and was funded). I had a good CV, my mentor had a great CV, was at a great insititution, my mentor write a very specifically-tailored training plan, etc. I scored 1 on everything not related to the research proposal, but in my initial submission I had scant preliminary data and was killed for this. Also one reviewer killed me for proposing to do a technique that our lab had not previously published on and I had not (yet) learned how to do. After adressing these problems in my second submission I was funded.
So, its just to say that yes in theory its about 'training' but in practice it still comes down to the research proposal for anyone who can get past the initial 'screening' for the training/mentor/applicant components. I think its also worth keeping in mind (and I think this is not a good way of doing it), that these are reviewed at study sections where they are also reviewing RO1s, K's, etc. So even though they say okay now we are switching to the F awards (I sat in on multiple study sections during my PhD time), the reviewers are still often in the mindset of reviewing R01s.
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2007
- Messages
- 2,263
- Reaction score
- 4,143
I served in a F30 study section for 5 years and personally reviewed over 150 applications. Each study section has its very own culture... However, you would be surprised by the number of poor training plans. In addition, the expertise of the committee is very general. I reviewed all kinds of neurodegenerative, vascular, imaging and other neuroscience projects but my expertise is in Epilepsy. Regarding feasibility of the project, that certainly is also a frequent objection, but the point is that if the lab had previously publish on it, it would not have been a problem.
Yes, like I said if you have a poor training plan or mentor without a solid history of training, then you will not have a chance. However, there are more applicants that are solid in all 3 of those areas than there are funds. Therefore, of all the applicants that make the 'cut' based on training plan, applicant CV, and mentor CV (of which I was one as I had 1's in all these areas), then it comes down to the research proposal just like any other grant mechanism. So, my point is if you aren't going to be excellent in the 3 non-research categories (applicant, mentor, training plan), then you are better off not wasting you time applying. For those who are good in these areas, then you can't just put down some bs research plan and assume you are going to ride your mentor's coattails. At that point the competition is at the level of how much preliminary data do you have, how big of an impact can the proposed work have, what is the liklihood you can do what you say, etc. So in essence for anyone who is actually competitive in the three non-research crtieria, the review process is basically the same as other granting mechanisms.
Similar threads
