Escape Panic Driven Funding Choices

R01 Pressure And Prestige Myths

Build A Clear Research North Star

Lead With Values And Self Trust

Operational Skills That Compound

Transferable Grantsmanship Across Funders

Define Success And Next Steps

SPEAKER_00 0:02

Welcome to the Significant Impact Podcast, the show dedicated to helping women faculty convert their NIH Career Development Award into their first big R01. This period in your career is such an important turning point, and it's a crucial opportunity to design the kind of research career that really works for you so that you're able to write and lead these big career-fueling research project grants. It's not easy to figure out what you really want when you have so many different voices in your ear telling you what to do and how to do it. But it is possible to design a career that's fulfilling and meaningful to you while also securing enough grant funding to sustain your lab and make an impact with your research. That's what we're talking about here on Significant Impact. With me, Sarah Dobson, NIH grant consultant and academic career coach. Tune in for an honest look at what it really takes to be successful in the world of NIH grant funding. Start thinking differently about what an academic career looks like, one that's driven by purpose and curiosity, and a healthy dose of disruptive energy. In the last episode, we talked about what panic-driven decisions cost you and how to evaluate funding opportunities so that your decisions come from clarity rather than fear. So if you haven't listened to that one, I'd encourage you to go back and start there. Today, I want to zoom out and talk about something that I think will help with that sense of dread and overwhelm that you might be feeling right now. And that is this. And they're not tied to a single funding agency. They're not tied to a single grant mechanism. And recognizing that is one of the most freeing things that you can do for yourself right now. So let's get into it. I want to start first by naming the elephant in the room because I think it's important that we say this out loud. I also don't need to tell you this because you are far more familiar with these pressures than I am, right? And that's the pressure to secure NIH R01 funding specifically. That has long been the gold standard for biomedical researchers based at US universities, right? It's what your institution expects. It's what you are expected to secure to get promoted, to get tenure. It's what your mentors probably built their careers on. And because of that, there is this prestige, there is this hierarchy where every other source of funding can feel like a consolation prize, or even like it doesn't really count because it doesn't get measured or valued in the same way. Like you've somehow fallen short if you're not getting your research funding from NIH. And so I want to acknowledge that and also push back on it because tying your career and your identity to a single funding mechanism was always a risk. And we've talked about that before, right? But now it's an even bigger risk. Here's what I know is true. Your institution hired you as research faculty to do research. You're responsible for making that happen. And of course, yes, your institution has preferences, they have expectations, but ultimately this is your career and it's up to you. So let's very quickly do a little thought experiment. Let's say you found yourself a patron who really believes in the research you're doing and was willing to fund your lab for the rest of your career. Would that really be a consolation prize because you didn't get the NIH grants that your institution expected of you? Now, that's obviously an extreme example, and maybe that isn't the best one either, because another thing I say on this show is don't put all your eggs in one basket. But I just wanted to illustrate the idea that these hierarchies, this prestige is manufactured, right? Ultimately, what you're trying to do is get your research off the ground and bring it into the world so that you can make the type of impact that you want to make. You need funding to do that, like it or not. And it doesn't really matter where the funding comes from if it allows you to do that work that you need to do to make your impact. And of course, I know that it might sound risky when you're worried about keeping the lights on in your lab or even keeping your job. But I think you have a lot more autonomy here than you realize. You get to define what success looks like. And I want to help you reorient your definition of success around research impact, not around meeting institutional expectations. So, what I want to do for the rest of the episode is show you that the skills you're building right now, the skills of this K-2R transition are not NIH specific. They're career skills and they will serve you no matter where the funding comes from. So I think about the work of this K-2R transition in a few big categories, and I want to walk through each of them to show you why none of them are tied to a specific funder. So the first bucket is knowing who you are and where you're going, right? We talk about this all the time. This, of course, is the foundational piece. Knowing your research direction, knowing what you uniquely bring to your field, understanding the specific contribution that you want to make and why it matters and why you are the one to do it. Being clear on where your expertise lies and where your genuine interest and energy live. And on top of that, there is the strategic thinking that builds on that clarity, connecting your K-word research to your next project, building a coherent program of research that tells the story of where you've been and where you're going. That is the pragmatic rubber meets road aspect of defining your vision. The specific timeline might change depending on the funder, the specific mechanism might be different, but that skill of thinking strategically about your research trajectory and how it allows you to achieve your vision, that is universal. If you're clear on where you're headed, you can adapt your approach to pretty much any funding landscape without losing your footing, right? You can read a funding opportunity announcement from PCORI and quickly see whether your work fits because you know what your work is. You can hear about an opportunity with a foundation and assess in just a few minutes whether it aligns because you've already done the work of getting clear on your direction, of defining your vision, defining your North Star, right? But if you haven't done that foundational work, everything feels urgent and everything feels possible, but nothing feels quite right. Every opportunity feels like it's something you ought to pursue because you don't have a framework for deciding what matters. And that's where that dread and overwhelm comes in, because you're trying to evaluate those opportunities without that framework. So, this is the work that I would really encourage you to do, whether you are planning to apply to NIH or anywhere else. Get clear on who you are as a researcher, where you're headed, and what impact you want to make. That is yours. No funding agency can give or take away that clarity. The next bucket is how you show up and how you lead. And I realize that might not be the first thing that comes to mind when you think about what you need to get through this career transition. And I think it surprises a lot of students inside Kato R Essentials as well, how useful this foundational leadership work we do really is. But hear me out for just a second. So knowing your values and using them to make decisions is a core career skill that will set you apart. Developing self-trust, self-leadership, learning how to say no to things that don't align with where you're headed, even when it's uncomfortable. That is all vital work for you to do if you want to be a productive and prolific PI. And none of this changes based on who's funding the work, of course, right? In fact, I would argue that in uncertain times, these skills become even more important because you're making tougher decisions with less information and more uncertainty, right? The ability to trust your own judgment, to show up as a leader rather than waiting for someone to tell you what to do next, the ability to make a decision and learn from it rather than staying stuck in indecision, that serves you everywhere. If you're gonna be a PI, no matter how your lab is funded, you need to be able to lead. You need to be able to foster a sense of trust and camaraderie in your lab. You need to trust yourself. You need to know what you stand for and make decisions accordingly. And I think what can happen during periods of uncertainty is that you retreat into that mentee mindset, right? We've talked about this so many times on the show before. When everything feels scary and unstable, that instinct is to look around for someone else to tell you what to do, to defer to those who you believe have more experience, or to just do what everybody else is doing. And I completely understand that impulse. But I also know that many of you listening to the show are building research careers that don't have a clear and obvious path forward. You may be the first one in your department to pursue a particular path. You might not have any good role models or examples to look to. And so doing what everybody else is doing is not really an option unless you want to abandon the path that you really want to pursue, right? So trusting yourself to make decisions to lead when the path isn't clear is an absolutely vital skill for your career success. Okay, the third bucket is how you execute. And this is really about those operational skills, right? Time management, protecting your capacity, filling your protected time with work that actually matters, creating a plan for how you're going to develop your next grant proposal, learning to prioritize. These are the skills that apply to any grant, any funder, really any professional context, right? The habit of thinking carefully about how you're spending your time and whether it's aligned with your priorities, that's universal. And I think this is an area where people underestimate how much they are building. When you learn to manage your time and your capacity, when you develop systems for how you work, when you stop saying yes to everything and start being intentional about where you put your energy, that is what allows you to gain momentum. That is something that compounds over time. And of course, those are independent of any specific funder. So just taking a step back and looking at all of this together, the vision and the direction work, the leadership and self-trust, the strategic and operational work. What I want you to see is that these are career skills. These are the skills of becoming an independent investigator. And that transition from mentored researcher to someone who can successfully lead and sustain a program of research, that is a meaningful milestone, regardless of how you're funded. So we've talked about those core career skills, but I also briefly want to talk about some of the core grantsmanship skills that are necessary across funders, right? Because that's my other hat, my grant consultant hat. And it wouldn't feel right to me to not mention those skills in this context as well, right? So the first thing I'll say is that the way that I teach grantsmanship is really principles-based. It's really, these are the core principles, the core skills that are required. And then we apply those skills to a specific funding opportunity. And so I'll just briefly touch on some of those core grantsmanship skills that I see as transferable across applications and that I personally transfer across applications when I'm working with folks on different NIH mechanisms in different funding opportunities from different funders, what I see as universal. So the foundational grantsmanship skill, in my opinion, the one that everything else builds on, is being able to communicate the value of your research. And that has a few different facets to it, which which I'll go through. But at its core, what you are trying to do in a grant application is communicate the value of your research. That means articulating a clear problem, identifying a gap in knowledge, explaining why your approach will allow you to fill the gap in knowledge, and making a case for why you and your team are the right ones to be doing the work. You're telling a story about your research. And the core of that story does not change based on the funder. Certain elements of it change, but not that core story about, you know, here's this problem I'm trying to solve, here's the gap in knowledge I'm trying to fill, and here's why my team and I are the right ones to do it. And that really comes down to framing. So what does change is how you frame it for a particular audience so that it reaches the people who are going to be reading your application, but also so that it aligns with the requirements of the funding opportunity, which is set by the funder, right? And so that's actually the second grantsmanship skill that I want to highlight. And it's that ability to read what a funding opportunity announcement is asking you to do and translate your core idea for that specific context and that specific audience. Understanding what PCRI values versus what a disease-specific foundation values versus what an NIH institute and study section is looking for, those are different. And the skill of being able to read the room, understand what a funder cares about, understand the specific audience that is reading your application and present your work in a way that speaks to their priorities, that is a skill that you can develop. And once you have it, you can deploy it anywhere. Obviously, I can speak to this from my own experience as a grant consultant. And truly, I use those same skills, whether I'm working with somebody applying to NIH, to the Canadian Institutes for Health Research, or to any other funding organization. I used it when I was applying for career awards back in the day, right? That core work, understanding the research, understanding what makes it compelling, communicating it clearly is the same every single time. The packaging obviously changes, but the fundamentals do not. So I want to bring this home by saying something that I hope you will reflect on. You are building something durable, something lasting. The work you're doing right now to clarify your research direction, to develop your leadership, to think strategically about your career, and to learn to communicate the value of your research. That work is not wasted if the NIH landscape continues to change, right? It's not tied to a single grant mechanism or a single funding agency. It's the foundation of the kind of investigator you are becoming. And I want to reiterate something that I said earlier and something that I say often on this show, and that is define success for yourself. If success means making an impact with your research, and I think for most of you that is exactly what it means, then keep your eyes on that. The path to get there might look different than you expected even a year ago. But the skills, the clarity, and hopefully the confidence that you're building right now, those travel with you, but they don't become irrelevant because the funding landscape changed. Those are yours. And that's really important to remember right now. You are not starting from scratch every time we get more bad news about what's going on at NIH, right? You are building a solid foundation. And it's much stronger than you think. All right, my friends, I will see you next time. Thanks for listening to this episode of Significant Impact, from K Award to your first big R1. If you want to dig deeper into what we learned today and move a significant step closer to a smooth K-2R transition, visit Sarahdobson.co slash pod and check out all the free stuff we have to help you do just that. Don't forget to subscribe to the show to make sure you hear new episodes as soon as they're released. And if today's episode made you think of a colleague or a friend, please tell them about it. Tune in next time and thanks again for listening.