All they are missing is actually calling them StockCritiques™
DrugMonkey
Careerism in NIH funded biomedical science with an occasional foray into drugs of abuse such as MDMA and cannabis / marijuana.
Quoted
Profile
DrugMonkey is an NIH-funded biomedical research scientist.
PhysioProf is an NIH-funded basic science faculty member at a private medical school.
Recent Comments
- Scientizzle on Guess what? It was the MDMA that killed her.
- DrugMonkey on Blog Readership Roundup 2010
- DrugMonkey on Guess what? It was the MDMA that killed her.
- Sketch on Guess what? It was the MDMA that killed her.
- DrugMonkey on The Revenge of Who are you, what are you doing and why do you keep looking at me!!??!
- biochem belle on The Revenge of Who are you, what are you doing and why do you keep looking at me!!??!
- Ed Yong on Blog Readership Roundup 2010
- yellowfish on The Revenge of Who are you, what are you doing and why do you keep looking at me!!??!
- Isis the Scientist on The Revenge of Who are you, what are you doing and why do you keep looking at me!!??!
- GMP on The Revenge of Who are you, what are you doing and why do you keep looking at me!!??!
Recent Posts
- Blog Readership Roundup 2010
- The Revenge of Who are you, what are you doing and why do you keep looking at me!!??!
- Who is a scientist?
- Another festival, more medical emergencies, another MDMA-associated death
- Sex Matters. As does dedicated grant funding.
- Scooping and Inbreeding
- UC postdocs get a little help from CongressCritters
- Another reason poster sessions are the most productive part of the meeting
- K99/R00 Discussion Forum
- A quick CSR video on basic grantsmithing tips
Blog Promotion
Schwag
Search
Archives
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
Blogrollin'
- The old DM site at WP
- 49 percent
- Academic Jungle
- Action Potential
- Ambivalent Academic
- Addiction Inbox
- All About Addiction
- Almost Diamonds
- The Alternative Scientist
- Behind the Stick
- Blue Lab Coats
- brain glucose
- Brazillion Thoughts
- Candid Engineer in Academia
- ChemicalBioLOLgy
- DamnGoodTechnician
- Deep Sea News
- Dr. Becca
- Dr. Jekyll and Mrs. Hyde
- Female Science Professor
- Golden Thoughts
- Infactorium
- Junction Potential
- JUNIORPROF
- A Mad Tea-Party
- Medical Writing, Editing & Grantsmanship
- My Fair Scientist
- A Natural Scientist
- ORI Blog
- the path forward
- PhysioProf
- Pondering Blather
- The Prodigal Academic
- Prof-like Substance
- Professor Chaos
- Professor in Training
- rENNISance woman
- The Science of Sport
- A scientist's life
- Sun Dappled Forest
- Tales of the Genomic Repairman
- VWXYNot
- Yakety YAK
- Young Female Scientist
Searching for Science
NIH Basics
Drug Abuse Basics
Animal Research
Comeek
Old Quotes
« Chime in on the Overlord's Future Planning | Main | K99/R00 Discussion Forum »
A quick CSR video on basic grantsmithing tips
Category: Grant Review • Grantsmanship • NIH
Posted on: June 27, 2010 6:50 AM, by DrugMonkey
Find more posts in: 
Education
Share this: Facebook Twitter Stumbleupon Reddit Email + More
TrackBacks
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://scienceblogs.com/mt/pings/142560
Comments
By showing us SROs in wet labs, I think CSR is giving us a sneak peek of their future plans for enhancing peer review:: molecular assignment of grant applications, bioengineered reviewers that limit their discussion of grants to StockCritques, and fMRI-based scoring.
Posted by: microfool | June 27, 2010 9:34 AM
Dude, you're trolling me with this fucking arrant garbage, aren't you?
Posted by: Comrade PhysioProf | June 27, 2010 1:04 PM
So why does anyone think providing this info in a video format is helpful? Wouldn't you rather just see the content (not all of which is useless -- reminding people that being clear matters, fundamentally, and that you must get others to look at your work is good, and can't be repeated more often than necessary)?
I can only conclude that people have a bizarre desire to see themselves on video.
Posted by: neurolover | June 27, 2010 2:06 PM
Dude, you're trolling me with this fucking arrant garbage, aren't you?
What? This is good, if incomplete, advice. Like I said in the title, "basic" tips.
Posted by: DrugMonkey | June 27, 2010 3:08 PM
To the extent that the advice is "good", it is totally obvious: be clear, proofread, spell-check, target your audience, etc. To the extent that it is non-obvious, it is misleading at best, and totally wrong at worst.
Beyond the obvious truisms, the fact is that there are *no* general rules for how to structure a grant application and argue for its worthiness. It is *all* highly case-dependent: career stage of investigator, nature of the science (hypothesis-based, tool-development, exploratory, etc), culture of the study section being targeted, etc. The only way to write a fundable application--other than relying on dumb luck--is to get expert advice on taking account of these specifics.
The mere existence of platitudinous advice such as this video being promulgated by NIH lulls inexperienced investigators into thinking that it is sufficient. It is not.
Posted by: Comrade PhysioProf | June 27, 2010 3:28 PM
I think you are going just a leeeetle bit overboard in the other direction. Hypothesis testing is the default. If you want to go and generate tools or go off on -omics fishing expeditions those require extraordinary effort to avoid the stock critique.
Posted by: DrugMonkey | June 27, 2010 8:31 PM
You are grossly overgeneralizing in the same misleading way that this video does. There are *fucktons* of funded R01s that are not based on hypothesis testing. And to make that sound like the sine qua non is not only poor grantsmanship; it stifles important science.
Posted by: Comrade PhysioProf | June 27, 2010 8:43 PM
what "'fucktons'" of funded R01s that are not based on hypothesis testing"?? Is there some way to look this up? Who gets these? Which study section is handing these out (ie, giving these high scores)? Certainly not the ones I've submitted to. Maybe the better question is, what's a fuckton. If it's a small number, then we're on the same page...
Posted by: zoubl | June 27, 2010 9:34 PM
From many years of NSF and NASA panels the best advice is -
READ THE FUCKING CALL FOR PROPOSAL FUCKTARDS -
Your grateful grant reviewer. . .
Don't and you won't get funded but we still have to read your steaming pile of crap and write a review.
Posted by: Eli Rabett | June 28, 2010 10:27 PM