Am I foolish to be getting my hopes up for an F30 after a "Not Discussed" A0 submission?

[ChordaEpiphany]

I'm re-submitting my F30 today. I'm at a non-MSTP school, and this would mean funding for my final years of med school. It would mean financial stability in my post-MD career and the freedom to pursue research, even at a lower salary, instead of having to go straight to clinical jobs to pay off loans. I also think I've built it up in my head to be some sort of measure of whether or not I'm even worthy of being here, especially after all my MSTP rejections.

My first submission went "Not Discussed." I can't say I'm surprised. We submitted it in April. With COVID precautions causing havoc in the hospitals and labs shutting down, I couldn't get my sponsors to look at the thing until a week prior to submission. We couldn't even get a biosketch from one of my key personnel because they basically stopped answering email. The research proposal got pretty bad marks as well (all 4s on the Summary Statement). Overall each reviewer said enthusiasm was "High" "Moderate" and "Moderate."

I re-built the proposal from the ground up. I took a class on proposal writing and workshopped it all semester. I sent it to 4 different professors for feedback. I re-wrote the aims to be focused and hypothesis driven instead of narrative and linear. I re-made figures to show clean, clear diagrams of the technology proposed. All administrative issues were resolved. I truly believe this submission is head-and-shoulders above my previous submission in quality.

However, I read today that re-submissions of R01s that are initially "Not Discussed" are almost never funded. Is the same true for F30s? Should I be expecting a luke-warm review no matter what, just based on expectations of reviewers going in?

Edit: For those looking at this thread in the future, my grant was funded! As of 2022, I definitely recommend 2nd or even 3rd submissions of F30s if you are set on getting funded. Also, look into pay lines before you apply. Some institutions are tougher than others. The year I applied the NCI's pay line was 28, and I was funded at 22. The next year the pay line fell to 14. You can increase your odds by asking around and finding an institute with higher pay lines.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[dl2dp2]

Generally, my advice for novice grant writers is that it's not useful to stake any long term planning on any particular grant. Your career decisions should be based on whether you enjoy the process rather than the scores from a particular application. Typically, the funding record of applications reflects the typical funding rates of applicants similar to you, meaning about 1 in 5-10 applications get picked up. That's all there is to it. If it doesn't get funded, you'll just need to write more grants. If you don't enjoy getting most of your applications rejected, it's probably not a good idea to continue in this career path.

That said, for a variety of reasons, some people get grants quickly and easily. So there is a differentiation in career advancement in that way. But most of the time people who get more grants just write more grants. In particular, by the nature of simple probability, people who write very few grants generally do not advance--so if you are discouraged by an initial rejection it just shows that this career is not a good fit.

In terms of pragmatics, there are many pathways post-MD to do more research (LRP, etc), and PSLF means if you stay low salaried doing research via other means (T32 etc) your loans will be forgiven. Generally, the period between residency and mid-career faculty position is where you need to at least be involved in writing 3-5 grants per year, and the vast majority of these grants will be rejected. "The freedom of pursuing research" you are talking about is really the freedom of conceptualizing a project and raising money to pay for someone else to actually do the research. Typically this job pays about 150k a year and caps out at around 200k a year. The job of actually doing the research itself on a day to day basis (i.e. staff scientist) pays about 60-80k a year. Just making sure you know what you are getting into.

 

[Alyssum]

However, I read today that re-submissions of R01s that are initially "Not Discussed" are almost never funded. Is the same true for F30s?

Not true for F30s. Definitely know of people getting funded on the second round after "not discussed". Even if it doesn't go through, you've learned a lot from putting the application together.

With that said though, don't judge your own worth/potential based on a grant... most of the F30 scoring has more to do with your research environment and reviewer biases than anything you can easily control. Some people get lots of help from their advisors/sponsors. You can publish great papers and have a great PhD regardless of whether it gets funded.

 

[SurfingDoctor]

Having a "Not Discussed" grant is usually an uphill battle. It's not unsurmountable, but generally speaking, yes if it wasn't discussed on an A0, it is unlikely to be funded on resubmission. That being said, there's is absolutely no downside to not submitting it. You've written it, put it back in. Because of the limited time frame of F submissions and the fact that nearly every single graduate student puts in a F grant, the funding rate is always low. And due to the fact of score compression, even grants with high impact can be left out. I personally think F grants are less about getting funded (though that is a plus) and more about practicing at writing and learning the process.

As was mentioned above, grant funding (beyond a F) is a number's game with a good dose of luck. Grant funding success, at least from the PI perspective, is all about the number of submissions. The more you submit, the likelihood of success increases. Not astronomically so, but that's essentially all you could do. Generally, speaking you need to put in at least 1 grant/cycle, ie every 3 months. Clearly, most people don't generate new or novel data that frequently, so it is essentially retooling the data you have into a new idea, resubmitting a grant as an A1, or reworking a previously triaged grant into something different. For my own experience, it took 7 R grant submissions over a period of about 2-3 years to finally get a funded R. I was told that was actually lucky and shorter than most (I've been told the average is more around 12 to 13 grant submissions per 1 that is funded). It actually probably was a good dose of luck because I played the game of funding and sought out PARs and RFAs (that's a tip). But also as mentioned above, if one doesn't deal with each rejection as incentive to put in another grant, academic research really isn't the life for that person. Actually, for better or worse, some of the most successful people in this game are really those who just like to constantly write and submit, with the science as a runner up.

 

[ChordaEpiphany]

@sloux Yes I'm very aware of the job. I actually love writing grants. I simply love learning and crafting new ideas. My disappointment doesn't come so much from this proposal alone, but from my consistent failure and underperformance relative to the results I "should" be getting for my effort, according to advisors and mentors at least. Not getting into an MSTP program stung a lot. Taking the financial hit was something I could take if it meant I would be given a fighting chance to run a lab. I'm questioning whether that is possible.

@Allysum Thanks for the encouragement. It's both the money and the proposal, and I've certainly learned a lot about my research and how to communicate effectively. With even more loans, I don't think I'll get my career off the ground, at least not while staying on track as a physician. Getting "not discussed" definitely stung, and I'm just losing confidence in myself as a scientist. How could I be so far ahead of my peers (near perfect GPA at an Ivy League school, 99th percentile MCAT, multiple pubs, patents, a previous NIH grant, a long history of outreach, etc...) and be doing so poorly now? I got 3s from my reviewers in "Fellowship Applicant". I don't know what could I do to be more qualified, and it's hard not to see this as a simple rejection from the profession.

@SurfingDoctor I'll have to look into loan repayment, but I think that requires many years of work, which is really inconsistent with physician-scientist training timelines.

@Fencer You seem to be very knowledgeable on this. Can I ask for your thoughts? Not discussed with mostly 2s and some 3s and 4s. Very close to the scores of many funded grants from my peers (total 1-9 scores added to 40, the funded grants I saw were in the mid- to high-30s). The research proposal was by far the biggest weakness, and I made extensive revisions and workshopped it with many people. I know it's a much better grant. Will the stigma of a "not discussed" table this application, or does it have a fighting chance? How much "bias" goes into the scoring of a re-submission of an F30?

Thank you all so much for your thoughts.

 

[Alyssum]

Thanks for the encouragement. It's both the money and the proposal, and I've certainly learned a lot about my research and how to communicate effectively. With even more loans, I don't think I'll get my career off the ground, at least not while staying on track as a physician. Getting "not discussed" definitely stung, and I'm just losing confidence in myself as a scientist. How could I be so far ahead of my peers (near perfect GPA at an Ivy League school, 99th percentile MCAT, multiple pubs, patents, a previous NIH grant, a long history of outreach, etc...) and be doing so poorly now? I got 3s from my reviewers in "Fellowship Applicant". I don't know what could I do to be more qualified, and it's hard not to see this as a simple rejection from the profession.

Because you're NOT doing poorly, what you go through it's typical and you have to hang in there if this is what you want. Most people don't get funded on their NRSAs on the first round. Even with my very small sample size, I personally know two people going from "not discussed" to funded on their Fs. Plenty of people resubmit even when their grants were not discussed the first round. Some people didn't get funded on their grants but published great papers and matched to their top choice specialities/programs. You're doing well. Keep going.

I also know the feeling of losing confidence too well. If you're comfortable enough talking to your peers about this, you'll find that you're far from alone. For me it's helpful as well to have mentors I can talk to about these things. Rejections are common and part of the game. Don't take those things too personally.

 

[wandering star]

However, I read today that re-submissions of R01s that are initially "Not Discussed" are almost never funded. Is the same true for F30s?

This is commonly believed among people who submit R01s but this is actually not true. NIH analyzed and released the data (Resubmissions Revisited: Funded Resubmission Applications and Their Initial Peer Review Scores) showing that resubmissions are funded at about the same rate as first submissions.

My philosophy (read: personal experience) is that your first grant submission is probably going to be a burner as you're still learning how to write a grant. My own first submission for an R grant was Not Discussed; my second submission was funded on the first try. I do think I got a little lucky on #2 but my first grant was badly written in retrospect.

Disclaimer: I am a PhD scientist and have never submitted an F grant.

 

[ChordaEpiphany]

I got my scores back today. I was discussed this time. 22nd percentile, but Impact Score of 32. Does this seem like odd percentile vs. impact score? It's very different from what I've seen anywhere else (usually Impact Score close to or below the percentile). I'm not quite sure what matters more, percentile or impact scores. If my section was particularly harsh, leading to a high impact score but a better percentile, will this hurt me or is this worked into the eventual pay lines?

I can't find any information on NIH pay lines (or when they will be released). Does anyone have any insights? My PI has no idea with regard to all of this.

 

[Fencer]

Check this spreadsheet from NIH

https://report.nih.gov/catalog/DisplayReport.aspx?rId=550

(Fellowships)
Select your institute and your grant F30. 22 percentile might be on fundable range, but depends on the institute. You need to send a brief email to your program officer. See eRA Commons for that information. Ask the question of was is the typical payline for percentile or impact score...
Best of luck!
Fencer

 

[Neuronix]

I got my scores back today. I was discussed this time. 22nd percentile, but Impact Score of 32. Does this seem like odd percentile vs. impact score?

I can't find any information on NIH pay lines (or when they will be released). Does anyone have any insights? My PI has no idea with regard to all of this.

Not unusual. Check with your program officer for likelihood of funding. Just email whoever is on your summary statement. Seems pretty good to me but funding depends on payline and other factors.

 

[ChordaEpiphany]

Check this spreadsheet from NIH

https://report.nih.gov/catalog/DisplayReport.aspx?rId=550

(Fellowships)
Select your institute and your grant F30. 22 percentile might be on fundable range, but depends on the institute. You need to send a brief email to your program officer. See eRA Commons for that information. Ask the question of was is the typical payline for percentile or impact score...
Best of luck!
Fencer

Thanks! I've seen the spreadsheet before, but it gives overall success rate and not pay lines. However, based on ~40% for NCI it should be ~20-24% of individual submissions assuming the average person resubmits if they don't get it the first time. That could change if these numbers reflect a lot of people submitting three times or not resubmitting at all.

All in all, it seems like I am either borderline fundable (percentile) or pretty far off the mark (impact score). I just have no idea how to interpret it, and I'm guessing no one here will know either unless they've seen a few NCI F30s come through this year.

Right now my status says to contact the Scientific Review Administrator with questions, not the PO. I guess I'll give it about a week and see if that updates, then I'll shoot an email over to whoever eRA commons tells me is the point-of-contact.

Not unusual. Check with your program officer for likelihood of funding. Just email whoever is on your summary statement. Seems pretty good to me but funding depends on payline and other factors.

Great! No summary statement yet, so I'll wait for that to come out before proceeding.

I really appreciate the feedback and input from both of you. My university has a lot of MD/PhDs, but the specific program I'm in is pretty clueless. This has been incredibly helpful.

 

[Fencer]

If you have a 22% (percentile) from NCI, you should be fine... Congrats! Now, it is in their border zone but in general, 28% has been the cut-off with some between 25-28% not funded based upon NCI program mission and comments...

 

[ChordaEpiphany]

If you have a 22% (percentile) from NCI, you should be fine... Congrats! Now, it is in their border zone but in general, 28% has been the cut-off with some between 25-28% not funded based upon NCI program mission and comments...

This is great to hear! I'm not going to get my hopes up until I have more information, but I'm really glad I asked here. We have someone in the lab for managing grants and they were giving me completely opposite information (they actually told me that I was definitely not funded because the cutoff was an impact score of 20, then they linked me to a blog post from 2011 as proof). I definitely needed a second opinion, and again I'm grateful for the perspective from someone whose seen this quite a few times.

 

[SurfingDoctor]

Impact scores don't mean percentile. If everyone in the study section gave every grant between a 7 and an 8, the average impact score would be 75, but the percentile rank would be vastly different among the applicants who scored a 70 versus those who scored an 80. It's called score compression, where small changes in impact score lead to large changes in percentile rank but everyone's scores are compressed into a narrow range. Typically though, the compression isn't around 7 or 8, its more like 2, 3 and 4. Thus many scores of good applications are going to be mid 20s to low 30s. The percentile rank is then is used as a comparison across study sections and a cutoff for grant awards based on institutional funding is based on the percentile rank.