NIGMS Ruth L. Kirschstein NRSA Predoctoral Institutional Research Training Grant Programs (T32) 2019

November 20, 2019 0 By Kody Olson

DR. SINGH (speaking): Hello everyone. Welcome to the webinar on
NIGMS predoctoral T32 training programs. My name is Shiva Singh, I’m the chief of
the predoctoral training branch at NIGMS. Let me begin with today’s webinar
agenda after the introductions. We’ll have our Institute Director Dr.
Jon Lorsch give his opening remarks that will be followed by Dr. Alison Gammie.
Alison is the director of the Division of Training, Workforce Development, and
Diversity. She’ll give an overview of the NIGMS-sponsored predoctoral T32
training grant programs, a bit about the application process, and what are
expectations from the NIGMS-funded training programs. after Alison, we’ll
have Stephanie, Dr. Stephanie Constant talk about the review aspects of the training
programs, what we have observed from the last two rounds of reviews of new T32
applications. Stephanie is the Chief of the Office of Scientific Review at
NIGMS, and finally we’ll have question and answer period, so talking about the
question and answer, we’d like you to type in the questions in the chat box that
should appear on your screen and at the end of the presentations we’ll try to
answer them. We’ll have by the way these slides
from the webinar as well as the videos we’ll post them on our website, the
training program website, so just in case you want to refer to them later on, you
should be able to do that. Finally, I like to have this disclaimer that what
we say here, what we share with you is really only part of the requirements
that that you need to know about. I strongly encourage you to read the
entire FOA and the relevant guide notices to get a bigger picture, to get a
fuller picture of what you need to do to put in a
competitive application. Before I hand it over to Dr. Lorsch, let me also welcome
our NIGMS staff, several of the T32 training program directors have joined us, so have the new grants management staff and our supporting staff, so
welcome everybody and with that Dr. Lorsch DR. LORSCH (speaking): Thanks, Shiva, thanks everyone for joining us. We thought that as the new FOAs and the effort to catalyze the modernization of
graduate education through NIGMS programs has been underway for some months now, it would be good to touch base with the community to find out what questions you
have and emphasize some things that maybe we felt needed
re-emphasis and to give you some lessons that I’ve learned, we’ve learned,
so far from the peer review and application processes. Hopefully you’re
all very familiar with the fact that for some years we’ve been working on these
efforts to catalyze the modernization of graduate education. NIGMS is in a
unique position to do that given that almost half of all NIH funded graduate
student T32 slots are coming from just this one Institute, NIGMS, and so I think
it’s really incumbent on us to make sure that they are being used as effectively
and efficiently as possible. Hence, this major effort to reform
graduate education across the country. If you have themes you’re going to be hearing
about, and hopefully you’re all familiar with our an emphasis on skills-building
during the didactic portion of the graduate training that NIGMS is
supporting and that your institutions are conducting. An emphasis on building
diversity I think it’s something that that also hopefully you are well aware
of as really something that we are focusing on quite a bit, and you’ll hear
about through the course of discussions here a number of other areas that we’re
hoping that you will increasingly emphasize and find better ways to do,
such as an emphasis on career development and a variety of different
career paths. A couple of things I think I just want to emphasize at the beginning
to get things off with a bang maybe. One is in terms of the skills-building part
of this new emphasis that we have, we are hoping and expecting that you are not
just be adding on new components of a curriculum or other kinds of activities
onto an already packed agenda for students, but you will instead be really
rethinking how you are educating and training the students from the ground up.
Obviously with first round or so of new applications
we weren’t expecting quite as high a bar for these kinds of new efforts. We
understand this can be a ramp-up period and people have to get used to what’s
happening, but as we move along here really starting perhaps now, I think
we’re going to be expecting to see some major curriculum reform efforts going on
across the country. So if you are coming in in the next few rounds for either a
new application or an application, they’re all new applications, but an
application for a new version of T32 for an existing program, we would
expect I think to be seeing some pretty significant curriculum reform efforts,
either at least in the planning stages, if not underway. And if we’re not seeing
that I think we’re going to be worried and so if you’re not thinking about that
I would strongly urge you to start thinking about that. I know it’s a very
difficult time-consuming process, I’ve been through it myself, but it really is
what we’re expecting to see. In a similar vein, we also expect that the programs
the T32 programs are supporting and are integrally connected to the graduate
program itself. We really don’t want to see the T32 being something that is layered on
top of an existing graduate structure and just being used to support the
graduate students in the labs. This really should be the T32s really should be
integral to the training environment and should be the framework around which your
graduate program is built. So I hope you think about that as well as you move
along here so thank you. DR. GAMMIE (speaking): Wonderful! Thanks, Jon.
So I’m Alison Gammie, the Director of Training, Workforce Development, and
Diversity, and I’m just going to walk through some slides to give you a sense
of what we’re looking for in these training programs and also hope to help
you with the application process. So to reiterate what Jon was saying,
today we’re going to be talking about our basic biomedical graduate programs
as well as the Medical Science Training Program, and they share they all of our
training programs share common themes and what we’re trying to do is what Jon
just said is to encourage changes in biomedical graduate training that will
keep pace with the rapid evolution of the research enterprise and as you know
it’s increasingly complex, interdisciplinary, and collaborative. We
would love, what we want to see is that you provide high-quality research
training, mentored research experiences, and additional opportunities that will
equip trainees with the technical, operational, and professional skills that
are required to transition into the biomedical research workforce. As Jon
mentioned, and I’m just going to reiterate, as the intention is not to
additional not to layer additional activities onto existing structures, but to
really encourage creative approaches to biomedical graduate education. To address
the major themes just a kind of major takeaways today as we’ve already said
several times, training skill development is one of the evidence-based approaches
to provide the technical, operational and professional skills needed. We want to see
specific aid, similar to a research grant, where you have your goals and
objectives, to refine your period we want to see that you have educational specific and
measurable goals. Additionally, an important part and a big change is to
emphasize rigor and transparency as well as a responsible and safe
conduct of research and we don’t want to see this just as a couple of one-off’s, but that it’s threaded throughout the entire training period from beginning until the
the individuals earn their Ph.D. As Jon mentioned we have a strong commitment to
diversity and inclusion. We believe that excellence in training requires a
diverse group of people coming to the enterprise and we hope that to see
activities in this area. We also want to see a strong commitment to mentor
training and oversight of the mentor mentee match throughout the period. As
Jon mentioned career preparedness – so making sure that the trainees have the
skills that they need to transition into the next phase but also it’s
understanding of the careers that are out there so that they can plan and
develop their own individualized skillset to transition to the next step.
A new component and a big difference is that we really expect to see a strong
institutional commitment to the program, to the training program, and we’ll get to
it in a minute how this is expressed, but this is a really important part of
programs going forward. And finally another area that we want to see is the
evaluation so is it working? Is the training program working? This involves
the collection and dissemination of data on successful and successes as well as
failures of your educational aim and we’d like to see outcomes posted
publicly, particularly for career outcomes, so that trainees know the range
of careers that individuals before them have transitioned into. The program
objectives have really flipped to be instead of being about the program and
their activities, it’s about the individuals, the trainees, and what kinds of skills they
have and are they able to transition into careers in the biomedical research
workforce? So the basic biomedical, you can build
the language as shown here. The MSTP is similar very similar language, except
that it’s obviously for trained physician scientists not just scientists,
and also we have an emphasis on transitioning into careers that utilize
the dual degree and that these individuals will become leaders in
advancing the research to meet the needs of the nation. Specifically what do we
mean by technical, operational, and professional skills? You can see them as
they’re at the bottom of all of these slides, but in particular, we hope to see
individuals that have a broad understanding across biomedical
disciplines and the skills to independently acquire the knowledge
needed to advance their chosen field. The ability to think critically and
independently and to identify important biomedical research questions and
approaches that push forward the boundaries of their area of study.
In continuing with technical and operational skills, strong foundation and
rigorous research design, experimental methods, quantitative literacy and
reasoning skills, as well as data analysis and interpretation. We also want
to see that they have had experience initiating, conducting, interpreting, and
presenting rigorous and reproducible biomedical research with
increasing self-direction. In terms of moving into professional skills that
these individuals have the ability to work effectively in teams with
colleagues from diverse cultural and disciplinary backgrounds, and to promote
inclusive safe, efficient, productive, and supportive scientific research
environments. We also would like to see the individuals that have the skills and
opportunities to communicate scientific research methodology and findings to a
wide variety of audiences and this includes discipline-specific audiences
across disciplines into the general public. And also to have the knowledge,
special skills, and experience required to identify and transition into
productive careers in a biomedical research workforce. So the same is true
for the MSTP programs, but there are a few additional caveats that in physician-based scientists, there’s also an emphasis on clinical skills as well for
all of the above. There’s also the skills necessary to integrate research and
clinical activities in support of a productive research career that combines
both qualifications, clinical and research. And the ability to utilize
clinical experiences and observations to inform research projects and to use
research findings to inform clinical practice. All right, so that’s sort of
giving you the main themes, the broad themes, some of the changes for what was
on the previous parent announcement and now we want to drill a little bit down
to see whether or not your particular program is a good fit with NIGMS. And
while we are a very broad area to represent broad areas of sciences, there
are some limits within this and it’s important to ensure that it’s a good
fit with NIGMS. So NIGMS has several areas. Your training program really needs
to fit within one of these areas that are listed here and on our web page
as well. For those of you familiar with our previous programs these have not
changed, except that we’ve added one new category and that’s your
transdisciplinary category and with that can be one of two
things that if you are an institution has never had one of our NIGMS
predoctoral T32 programs, you would be eligible for this category. Also another
group is if you’re merging two existing programs that have been at a single
institution, you’re eligible for this category as
well. And so every institution is allowed to have one program in each of these
areas and this is normally defined by what’s called a DUNS number or an
institutional profile number. All right, so once you’ve decided that you’re a
good fit, I should say I’m going to say it now, and I’ll say it several
times. First you should really consult with
program staff to make sure that it really you really are a good scientific
fit. You don’t want to go through the application process and find that it really
is not a good fit. So first and foremost, contact program staff here and we’ll
we’ll make sure that it’s a good fit. Once you’ve made that decision, you can
start moving towards the application process. I’m listing here, I won’t reel
them off, but the specific web pages for the two different FOAs, the basic
biomedical and the MSTP FOA. We’re also showing you web pages that
have general information, frequently asked questions, and importantly the last
one there, that’s the NIGMS program staff who will be able to help you navigate this
process. All right, starting out with the application there are many
components. As you can see that the program plan is the largest
component. We encourage you and strongly urge you to adhere to the page limits.
Your application will not be accepted if you exceed the page limits, but you can also
see that there’s a quite a bit of space to fully explain your training program.
Right now I’m going to move into probably the heart, the main text, of the
application and that includes the program plan. As I mentioned we want to see that
there’s a rationale, that you have a training mission, that you have specific
objectives, and as well an overall training plan that’s designed to meet
these mission and objectives. So the objectives should be specific and
measurable, so you really want them to be obtainable within a five-year period, and
that you have metrics that will be strong
indicators of success. As I mentioned, we want to see the rationale for the
training program. You must describe distinction from synergies with other
NIH or NIGMS-funded T32 programs. What is this particular program offering
that’s distinct, but how will you work with and synergize with other programs? We’ve
mentioned several times we want to have an emphasis on skill development and
importantly meeting the objectives of the training program so what skills are
going so that the trainees have obtained that are in alignment with a
specific objective. We want to strongly encourage the use of evidence-based
approaches to training and mentoring. There’s a lot of literature about what
kinds of approaches are effective in terms of strong educational outcomes and
we really want to see the use of these kinds of methods in the graduate space.
To illustrate an example of a training pathway from the time the student enters
until they obtain the Ph.D., we wanted some representative examples of the training
pathway explanations of how differences in backgrounds of the individuals
entering the programs will be accommodated and supported. This is an
important point. We want to see enhancements to the training environment
and this goes beyond just a few or individually-supported training, so it
really it has a broader effect on the training environment. And I do want to
mention that sometimes people get confused between distinct having a
distinct program and then also wanting to have synergies or have a broader
effect. I think the distinction part is what – scientifically what is distinct
about this training program – but enhancements to training environment can
have much broader skills-based effect so it is important to
navigate these – both of these points. If you have a multidisciplinary program
you need to describe in detail how the training program integrates across the
various departments and as Jon was mentioning it doesn’t layer
requirements on top, but really you have efficiencies and synergies with the
various requirements across the department. We have a strong emphasis on
career development and that includes the range of careers in a biomedical
research workforce. MSTP, we put an emphasis on research
residences as an outcome of training programs, but we do want to emphasize
that there’s a range of careers that support the biomedical research
workforce and that those should all be taken into mind when training
individuals. We want to see that the students are provided with opportunities
to develop the skills that are needed and also opportunities potentially for
experiential learning, such as internships, shadowing, or informational
interviews. And as I mentioned previously to have transparency about outcomes of
individuals so that when trainees are making decisions about programs they
understand where they’re headed in terms of their career outcomes. An important
component of all programs is that we want to see that there is a programmatic
oversight. We want to ensure that trainees are in research environments
when they transition into the laboratories, for example, that promote
their responsible conduct of research as well as conduct as well as these
laboratories are conducting rigorous and reproducible research. We want to see
oversight of the individuals throughout the training process not just the time
they’re supported by the grants but across the entire pathway. We also want
to see that the faculty who have been selected is a very thoughtful process
and that the group of people who are brought together are committed to
training and mentoring and that you provide these individuals with mentor
training opportunities. Something that again in terms of oversight ensuring
that the participating faculty will interact with their mentees
in terms of career advising, including but not limited to, the use of individual
development plans for IDPs. And also we’d like to see mechanisms for a
thoughtful matching of mentors and mentees as well as monitoring of this
mentor mentee relationship. In particular we want to see that there are plans for
removing faculty who show poor mentorship qualities from the program. As I
said before we really want to see a group of faculty who are committed to
training the next generation of scientists. As I mentioned a new somewhat
expensive component of the new programs is to see a strong institutional
commitment to research and training. So we want to see that they value and promote
rigor and responsible conduct in research, that there are mechanisms in place to
ensure the continuity of training for example startup funds for faculty or
bridging funds so that there’s continuity of training. That they provide
resources and research infrastructure to individuals. That they provide support to
the PIs of the grant training staff as well as the participating faculty and
this can look take many manifestations including financial support or
protective time. We want to see that the institution is committed to teaching and
mentoring, some examples of this can include having that as part of a tenure
and promotion process. Emphasizing what we said before, that there’s support for
remediation or removal from the training program poorly performing
mentors. We want to see of course diversity and inclusion is supported at
all levels of the research training environment, and this rings for training
staff faculty as well as institutional leaders. Ensure that the research in with
the MSTP as well as clinical facilities and the laboratories and clinical
practices all promote the safety of the training systems are really important to
us there’s been some high-profile cases of accidents and
the safety of an individual is very important. Ensure that the research, and when relevant, clinical facilities are accessible to trainees with
disabilities that they promote the institution promotes, positive, supportive,
and inclusive research and clinical training environments for individuals
from all backgrounds. We also want to see that the institution has policies and
procedures in place to prevent and respond to discriminatory harassment and
other discriminatory practices. We want to ensure that trainees will continue
to be supported when they transition from the training grants to other
sources, and that the institution provides resources and expertise for evaluating
the training outcomes of the program. And then importantly we want to see that the
institution with multiple T32 training programs explains how they are distinct
from, but synergize within certain activities and really to
increase efficiencies but this has to come from the institution level
that there is an understanding that there’s not overlap programs. So if
multiple institutions are participating as do in some of our programs or
has the plans for recruitment of trainees and faculty and integration of programs
across the institution. So this should be included in a single document that’s called
the institutional letter of support and it has a ten page limit and it’s a
standalone practice that we look for in the letters of support. All right, so
moving along through – all right, I just ask people to mute if they could. Thank you. (laughter)
So in terms of the program directors and principal investigators obviously it’s
important to us at least one of the individuals who has various scientific
expertise in the area that you’re proposing. They should also have
administrative and training experience. We want to see that the individuals have
sufficient bandwidth to oversee the program. That they themselves or
multiple people have a record of using rigorous and transparent methods in experimental
design, data collection, analysis, and recording. That there’s a demonstrated
commitment to training the next generation of biomedical researchers and
that they receive training to mentor individuals from a diversity of
backgrounds. We actually encourage a multi-PI approach, in particular to
bring complementary expertise to the enterprise so you can have a person with
the scientific background, you might want an institutional leader, potentially a
person who has experience with evidence-based practices in education, so
social sciences. We have it, we would like to see multi levels of
expertise brought together and a multi PI team. In terms of the faculties or the
preceptors/mentors also known as program faculty, we want to see that
the program is thinking about creating a diverse team and this includes
individuals from underrepresented backgrounds, women, and faculty at
different career stages. In particular, look for individuals to display a
commitment to training, have the appropriate expertise resources, and
bandwidth importantly, to provide research training. That they will provide
opportunities to initiate, conduct, interpret, and present rigorous
reproducible research with increasing self-direction. That they will promote
the development of trainees and approaches to rigorous experimental
design, methods of data collection, data analysis. And are committed to effective
mentoring and promoting inclusive, safe, and supportive research
environments. In terms of the trainee positions, recruitment, and retention
it’s extremely important to provide a strong justification for the number of
requested positions and this is placed in a context of the training
grant eligible school as well as the available faculty to support the
research training area. We also want to see that active efforts are being made
to recruit individuals from diverse backgrounds. We also want to see implementation of holistic approaches to
admission, so going beyond the grade point average or standardized test
scores for the prolifically at the application process to ensure that
there are no cutoffs or barriers to admission. We’re out of order here, sorry. We
want to see that expanding upon there’s a separate place for a
trainee retention plan to make sure that you’re thinking about the range of
students in the program and how you can ensure their persistence in the program.
Also as I mentioned provide the rationale for the training import
appointment. NIGMS really encourages appointment early in graduate training,
for example in years one through three and so you need to provide a strong
rationale for when they’ll be appointed, how many, and and so on. So training
outcomes are extremely important and it is understood that these are all new
applications however you should have provide outcomes of trainees that either
came from a similar program in the past or if you’re starting a new program and
drawing from different areas just examples of the previous successes. So what
we’d like to see is that the trainees there was evidence that they advance
scientific knowledge and or techniques and they did this with increasing self
direction. An indicator of this is often whether the trainees have first
author publications. We want to see completion in time to degree and and
importantly to compare individuals from underrepresented groups with those from
well represented groups. You’re able to outline the success of graduates
transitioning into careers in the biomedical research workforce and
there’s a training table Table 8A Part three (III) specifically to do this. Because
you’re new applications you’re only able to provide five years in that data
table however, if you want to provide more details up to 15 years you can do
so in the narrative. For the MSTP the outcomes we want to see outcomes for
individuals participating in research-based residency and in terms of
long term outcomes are they physician scientists leaders? Or have they
transitioned into careers that are using the dual degree? And I think I should say
this for outcomes in general so past success does not guarantee that the
current program is effective so you have to have a combination of past success
and the years you have a robust and excellent training program that’s
put forth in the application. In terms of program evaluation we want to see an
assessment process to determine whether the overall program is effective in
meeting the goals and objectives and again you each program you have stated
your own goals and objectives. Whether the scientific research climate is
inclusive, safe, and supportive of training development. What the plans are
or the current practices for being responsive to interpret final outcomes,
analyses, critiques, surveys, and evaluations. And obviously it goes
without saying saying that there needs to be robust structures in place to
track trainee career outcomes and make the data publicly available. So another
component of the application is a stand-alone component is the plan for
instruction in the responsible conduct of research. I think many of you should be
familiar with it at this point. You also need to for these funding announcements
explain how the components are well integrated into the overall curriculum
at multiple stages within training development. Explain how the RCR training
synergizes with a curriculum that’s designed to enhance trainees ability to
conduct rigorous and responsible research. And describe how program
faculty reiterate and augment key elements of the
of the curriculum when trainings are performing research in their own lab.
Sorry go back a couple of resources for RCR policy and resources are shown
there. Here’s a new component for those of you
who have been in the system a while. We really want to see a separate plan for
the instruction of methods for enhancing reproducibility. And basically you want
to describe how the trainees will be instructed in principles important for
enhancing research reproducibility including the evaluation of foundational
research, underlying the project, rigorous experimental design and data
interpretation, considering relevant biological variables, authentication of
key biological and/or chemical resources, data and material sharing, record-keeping, and
transparency and reporting. As before, you want to make sure that these
instructions are well integrated throughout the curriculum, how they’re
taught at multiple stages of training development in a variety of
formats and context. And again you want to make sure that the faculty are
reiterating and augmenting these key elements of methods for enhancing
reproducibility when the trainees are in their individual research lab. So we have
resources again for rigor and reproducibility, we have the general NIH
site, we also at NIGMS have supported R25 grants to provide training modules in
this area as well as a variety of NIGMS administrative supplements so you can go
to these pages to see how your peers have addressed this issue. We also were
looking for something different with the faculty biosketches we expect to see a
personal statement that will address training mentoring and promoting
inclusive, safe, and supportive research environment. That they have a record of
providing training and rigorous and unbiased experimental design, methodology, analysis, interpretation, and reporting of results.
That they support trainees in participating in activities required to
identify and transition into careers in a biomedical research workforce. And that
there is a track record of fulfilling the need of the trainees to complete their
Ph.D.’s in a timely fashion with the skills, credentials, and experiences to
transition into the workforce. All right, so there are few other required components
we mentioned already. In the letters of support section there’s a mandatory
institutional letter with a 10 page limit. As always there are data tables
that are required as listed here 1, 2, 3, 4, 5a, 6a, 8a part 3. One of the things I
can’t emphasize enough is check that they are internally consistent within
the individual application and that the tables match the narrative. Make sure
that they’re complete and accurate and this is – the reviewers will definitely
get to this. The reviewers really scrutinize these tables and and please take care.
There’s some resources down below on the slide here that you can turn to to get
help with these data tables. We have some attachments in one case that are either
allowed or required so if you are to have an advisory committee which is
optional, there’s a place to put an attachment. There are two required
attachments – one is the recruitment plan to enhance diversity and then there’s a
new one that for those of you who are coming in this is about trainee
retention and this should be about retention of all trainees within the
program. So in terms of the recruitment plan to enhance diversity at the bottom
you see a web page and it details effective practices that your peers
are using to recruit individuals from underrepresented groups. You should
describe these outreach strategies. If you need a reminder of the
groups we’re talking about, the notice has a hyperlink here, the NIH’s interest in diversity. You should describe the efforts to be undertaken
specifically by the training program and how it involves training programs
faculty. You should know that centralized institutional requirements alone don’t fulfill this effort, and then knowing also that just providing accommodations
for persons with disabilities doesn’t count as outreach or recruitment. In
terms of the trainee retention plans, you should describe the efforts to
sustain the scientific interests of trainees from all backgrounds.
Describe the specific efforts that are to be undertaken by training program,
including the involvement of training faculty. And as before, centralized
institutional efforts alone will not meet this requirement. In addition we
have for the system to break it out into two parts so for the basic biomedical
T32 we have a required attachment for the responsible conduct of research
syllabus. We have allowable appendices including courses, electives, and training
activities up to a total of four, Evaluation and assessment instruments,
trainee appointment procedures, and conflict resolution protocols. For the
Medical Science Training Program – we wrote this one afterwards and realized it was really probably important that the reviewers have an opportunity to see all
the required training activities so that is a requirement as is the responsible
conduct of research syllabi and trainee appointments procedures. As before
there are some allowables – includes elective activities, evaluation and
assessment instruments, and conflict resolution protocol. I’m just going to
say a little bit about the application budget that I encourage you to use
resources available and reach out to us if you need more guidance on this.
You’re to use the PHS 398 training budget form. The stipends are published
annually by NIH so that’s a fixed amount. So for
tuition and fees request total needs don’t apply any NIH formulas in the
budget that will be done afterwards to tell what your your total needs are. In
terms of travel, we provide three hundred dollars for training.
There are also training related expenses. Again those are in that same notice
they’re just established yearly annually by NIH. This will include health
insurance as long as you’re providing health insurance to all similar
trainees of the institution and the indirect costs are 8%. All right, so just
some important dates. The next applications are due May 25th but there’s
also a September 25th and January 25th deadline. So it’s always by 5:00 p.m.
local time. We encourage you to submit early so that any errors can be
accommodated and that the application part submitted. For those coming in in
May, the peer review will be October to November 2019. The Advisory Council is in
January of 2020, and the earliest start date is July 2020. So with that I will turn
it over to my colleague Stephanie, the Chief of the Office of Scientific Review. DR. CONSTANT (speaking): Good Afternoon everyone. As Alison
mentioned, I’m Stephanie Constant, the review chief at NIGMS and the purpose of
my presentation will be to go over how NIGMS reviews T32 applications and also
to tell you about some lessons learned from the first two rounds of review and
also some of the things that reviewers have struggled with because our applicants
they’re maybe not addressing some of the things in an adequate way and so we’re
hoping that by telling you some of these things that will help with your own
application to be more complete. First I just want to tell you for those
who are not familiar, we do have two standing committees that review all of our T32
applications both basic sciences and MSTP. They are TWD-A and TWD-B and I’ve
listed the SROs that run these two committees. Each one is made up of 21
members. All of them have a strong expertise in graduate training and we
have a distribution of diversity, gender, and geography as required by federal
law. And in cases where we have a very high workload we may supplement with ad
hoc members. So some of the things that we did are in preparation for the
new T32 FOAs is that we made a point to expand some of the existing expertise
and added some new members that have a strong expertise specifically in
evaluations and outcomes analysis. Also career outcomes in graduate
education and people who have experiences training in alternative
careers. The other thing we did is we reduced the initial membership for the
committee members to only two years as opposed to initially four years and the
reason we did this is because we sort of feel this is still a work in progress to some
extent, and by watching how these reviews go and seeing if there’s any gaps in
expertise is needed by having two-year memberships enables us to change
expertise on a more regular basis as we as we learn. Of course membership can be
renewed, in fact it can be up to a total of six years. If you’re interested in
seeing the current membership for the two rosters I’ve given you links at
the bottom both A and B. So the other thing we did in preparation
for the new FOAs is that we give very extensive orientations with the
reviewers. Specifically we did several webinars that included both program and
review staff and these were held jointly for
the members on both the A and B committees to make sure they’re getting
exactly the same instruction and also to ensure consistency across the review
panel. The other thing we did in particular for the first round of
reviews is that before we even started discussing any application the reviewers
were reoriented. They were able to ask questions both from program and review
staff before the review meeting started and their program and review staff were
present throughout in order to clarify anything that seemed to be difficult. We
also did a very extensive feedback after the review meeting where we solicited
feedback from the reviewers. We gave them an opportunity to tell us some of the
things that they still found difficult or maybe that they they felt could be
better explained in future orientations and you’re going to see some examples of
these at the end of my presentation so Some of the slides that I have
really, especially copies what Alison has already presented and I’m not
going to go over these in detail but the reason to tell you about these is so
that you are aware that anything that’s in the instructions for you as
applicants the same instructions are provided to reviewers. And so it’s a way
to reassure you that anything that you’ll be asked to provide the reviewers
are made aware that this is something that they need to look at and that the
review criteria that they’re asked to use for their evaluation really maps
back exactly to the instructions that you’ve been given. And so we emphasize
again the overarching themes of the new T32s. What are the purpose what is it that NIGMS is looking for? So this slide here
is essentially the same that Alison already presented to you. Just a couple
of things we really emphasize to the reviewers and this is most important
for reviewers who have been on the standing committees for a while already
is that we really emphasize to them the importance of forgetting the old review
criteria. These are new review criteria with these
new FOAs. They have to really adhere to those and the fact that as I mentioned
the review criteria match exactly the instructions that you are given as
applicants it’s really a good way for us to be sure that whatever is being evaluated
is exactly what you’ve been asked to provide. Again we emphasize the
importance of looking at procedures of the new training programs. In other words the
reviewers were instructed very carefully that they need to evaluate what is being
proposed as a new program not what a program previously had because of course
they’re going to recognize some of these programs that some of you have had
previously and so they need to evaluate what’s in front of them. Although again
as part of the instructions you were told that you can talk about your
previous program but this really cannot it needs to be really in the context
of feasibility for your new program what have you done previously what work
didn’t work and how it is you’re going to now design this new program.
Also the importance of justifying a number of slots that the applicant is
proposing for their new program. Regardless of what they have previously,
you as applicants need to provide a strong justifications for what you want to be your new program. We also emphasize the importance of holistic
approaches to education that it’s not just a research experience anymore for
trainees they need to have a rounded education. We need – the reviewers were
told to look for evidence of applicants embracing multiple biomedical career
paths and of course the importance of rigor and reproducibility and how it
really needs to be integrated throughout the training program. And we also talked
about the importance of evaluation and needs to be evidence that applicants
have sorted our evaluations and outcomes and that these not just the
long-term outcomes but also measurable short-term outcomes. So the review
criteria are very explicit. At the end of the day what the reviewers have been
asked to really consider when they come to do an overall final impact score is
is how is this program how is either the basic science program in this case going
to generate a pool of students that can conduct rigorous and reproducible
research and transition into careers in the biomedical research workforce?
And regardless of how you go about doing this is really the big picture and this is what’s going to drive the final
scoring for these applications. In the case of the MSTP, the driving force will be in
this case that your program will generate a pool of clinician scientists
that can transition into careers in biomedical research workforce using
that degree and become leaders in advancing research to meet the health needs
of the nation. So in terms of the actual review criteria themselves again
I’m not going to go through them in detail but just to tell you that they do
map exactly to the instruction. They are divided up into the same sections that
you have been asked to provide and that’s the training program and
environment. The program directors, the program faculty, trainee positions, and
training record and all of these are considered scored review criteria so
each of these sections will receive an individual score and they will factor in
directly to the overall final impact score. There are two other categories that are a part of review criteria the additional review criteria – they will
get an individual score but they do factor into the final score and
typically for those of you who are familiar with T32 training programs, this
used to really only apply to human subjects, vertebrate animals and
biohazards, which for most training programs didn’t really have as much
to say there – but actually one of the things that’s about to be published just
to give you a heads up is that we are now including the training methods for
enhancing reproducibility plan will now be listed under the additional review
criteria. And what that means is because it’s a very very important component the
importance of rigor and reproducibility so we felt strongly that it should be
factored into the overall impact score and so we were able to move that section
under that additional review criteria now and so it really will have a direct
impact on the final scores that reviewers are asked to provide for
applications. So as I mentioned there’s a notice coming it should be published I
believe in the next couple of weeks or so, and it will and we will be sure to
orient reviewers it so that they are prepared for that. The final section is the
additional review considerations. There are no perfect scores for this and these areas
are not considered directly to influence overall impact score however they are
being asked if they do need to be evaluated as acceptable and not
acceptable and that’s the recruitment plan to enhance diversity and the
training in RCR. And then of course the budget imperative support is to do with
the number of trainees as well. So I want to just go over a few reminders for when
you prepare your application and the reason I’m doing it is because we at the
office of scientific review are the ones that when we find applications are
missing sections or have put in things they shouldn’t we are the ones who have
to withdraw these applications and it’s very hard for us but I think by
providing you with a list and a reminder of all these different what needs to be
there and not be there I’m hoping I will help some of you and
we won’t have to withdraw too many applications the next round. So in each
of these slides you’ll see this scary highlighted yellow bit which is will not
be reviewed or will be withdrawn – just as a way of emphasizing that the language
is there and I’ve given you the link where that language is and unfortunately
we have to follow that language. The first one – all applications are new.
This is for both to basic science and now the MSTP all of the applications
must be new – this means we don’t want to see a progress report which was typical
for renewal applications. Please be sure not to refer to anything about a
previous review for any of your previous applications.
You know don’t mention how well you did in a previous round of review that does
not mean it’s a new application. So again if your application shows any hints that
it’s coming in as a renewal it will be withdrawn. The training data tables
As Alison mentioned there are required training data tables I’ve
listed them there again. Please be sure to include all of these tables. If any of
them are missing or if you add any that shouldn’t be there any additional tables,
your application will be withdrawn and will not be reviewed. Again, Alison
mentioned this also, you can include data on previous training programs additional
data that’s not in the tables listed there, however they need to be within
the narrative or the text section don’t include them as an standalone extra table
and they will be considered as feasibility data or preliminary data. If
you do want to include any other kinds of tables to do with of some other parts
of the application that’s fine but we ask you to please label them something
other than table one, two, three, four, we’re suggesting A through Z.
The reason for doing this is it makes it easier for the SROs to be able to
scan the applications to check what’s there and what’s not. So some reminders about other attachments it’s a little bit – I’m sorry – for both basic science
and the MSTP there are two required attachments and that is the recruitment
plan to enhance diversity, trainee retention plan. Both of these are
required. If they’re missing, your application will will be
withdrawn and there will not be a review. You are allowed to have an advisory
committee as another attachment. We urge you however not to name any individual
from that Advisory Committee. The minute you name anybody and the name is
in the application that actually makes it difficult for us from a conflict
perspective and we may have to not use certain group members on the Standing
Committee. Now the institutional letter of support – Alison went through this in
detail – One thing I do want to really emphasize is the importance that all our
information must be contained in that one letter. A couple of rounds ago, the
first round of review, we noticed that some applications were coming in where
the information was distributed across several letters by different authors – we
since put out a notice to say that cannot be done. If you have multiple
authors – all of the information has to be in that letter and all of them need to sign that
one letter. So multiple people can sign one letter, but it all has to be within
one letter. And please just remember to include the latest requirements for
the oversight of discriminatory practices. So again this letter is ten
pages maximum. If you go over that ten pages, or if you include multiple letters
to cover all the information, your application will be withdrawn. There has
been some confusion about whether you’re allowed to have other letters of support beyond that ten page letter and the answer is yes. You can have letters from
other people, such as collaborators, for example and there is no page limits to
those. Appendix material – is a little bit different
different between basic sciences and the MSTP. So for the basic sciences there is one required element and that’s the RCR syllabus and then you are allowed
several other things including electives and training activities. Do not submit
more than four and then, please if there’s any page limit, please be sure to
adhere to those. Again, if anything else is in there any disallowed materials in the
appendices your application will not be reviewed. The MSTP is a little bit
different it has three different required attachments. Please be sure all
three of those are there. There’s some other allowable materials. Again if you don’t
have those three attach – those three materials or you have things that shouldn’t
be there, we will withdraw the application. And so now for the last two
slides, I just want to go over some of the things that we’ve been hearing
from reviewers and I have been sitting in on all the review meetings so I’ve been there, first
hand hearing what it is that the reviewers are struggling with. And so one of the big
things that they have been looking for and that is not always present in some
of the applications that have been reviewed is how rigor & reproducibility
needs to be integrated throughout the application. This is a really important
new element for these new T32s, so there needs to be evidence that it
really is throughout all the different training components. It’s not sufficient
that it’s just in the methods for enhancing reproducibility plans. And as I
mentioned this becomes – we feel this is such an important component that now it’s
going to be a scorable component. It’s now as I mentioned included in the overall
impact score, so please be sure to show that you’ve integrated this throughout
the training program. The other thing is the enhancing of diversity. For the
most part, applicants have done very well at least discussing the trainees and how
they want to promote and enhance diversity for trainees, but mentors also
need to be considered. So please be sure that you talk about how you’re going to
increase diversity in the faculty within your program. This is a scorable
criterion I mean it is part of the program plan, so please be sure that you
address both of these and like I said it’s not sufficient to just describe it
in a recruitment plan to enhance diversity and then you know if for some reason
you’ve had deficiencies in the past in your program then say so but and explain
how you’re going to address these. One of the things that we sort of sometimes are
seeing is certain applicants have been very good at following the instructions
and making sure every single little thing is in there sort of like a
checklist and then seem to forget how to sort of integrate together and really
get across what is special about your program, what is it is unique about this
program compared to other training programs. Yes you’re bringing all these elements
together as you requested but how is it really going to be something special for
the trainees and this includes not only comparing your training program within
your institution but also outside. And the use of the word holistic – we did have
an application recently where a reviewer mentioned that the word holistic was all the way through the application, but that there was no
explanation of how what was holistic and how this approach was holistic, so
don’t just use the word holistic. Please explain what you mean for your specific
program. There were some limitations in some applications for evaluation. They
were either very short, like a very short section on evaluation, so they were very not – fully designed not well- designed. There was sympathy, there is sympathy from reviewers that some
institutions may not have a lot of resources to carry out very expensive
evaluation, and if that’s the case you know consider reaching out to colleagues,
bringing on a collaborator who maybe has more evaluations experience. Take
advantage of online resources which are available to explain you know how to set
up evaluations and outcomes analyses, and you know it’s important to discuss
not just long-term evaluations or short-term – how you’re going to make
sure you know at the end of every year that you really kind of are really on
track. Now the institutional letter – if there is a lot in that letter I can tell
you the reviewers really look at that letter. It may seem like again if you can
put together everything that’s required in the letter that’s enough it really
isn’t. You need to show, that letter needs to show, that whoever signing it
actually knows what your training program is about, that they actually are
not just signing their name at the end of something. I mean this needs to be a true
commitment from this individual to the program. For programs where there’s been a
PI that had a previous program for a very long long time if it’s the same PI
coming in with a new program, find that if you’re someone who’s been running a program for
a long time, you may want to consider a co-director, at least showing that you’re
thinking long term – maybe include some transition plans for you know down the
line. Reviewers are really looking at the biosketches and personal statements. We’ve seen many biosketches coming in with there’s nothing no commitment language included. They really look at every single biosketch and they will be looking for
that commitment language. And finally the importance of justifying the number of
slots that you are requesting. We do instruct the
reviewers that just because the program, a previous program, had 40 slots or
whatever that doesn’t mean they can come back and ask for the same number of slots.
If you want 40 slots you’ve got to explain how you will be able to support those, your training of eligible students, the resources you have – there’s a lot of
discussion that goes on about the training slots requested. And again
anything that’s wanted, that you’re trying to request that may not be in our typical
NIGMS guidelines for the early years, more than two years of funding, it has to
be really really well justified. So I believe that’s the last slide and I think
we’re ready for questions. DR. SINGH (speaking): Okay thank you to Jon, Alison, and Stephanie. So we’ll
begin with questions and to help me do that it’s Dr. Mercedes Rubio who’s managing the computer that your question should
be coming from. Before we get to the questions, Alison mentioned that
you should really contact the programming staff as you’re putting together your
application. I cannot overemphasize that aspect. One of the requirements, new
requirements, is that you should identify the area for which you are applying –
you’re putting in your application. So you have to identify, whether it’s under molecular biology or molecular biophysics, whatever the area you need to
identify that. And to do a good job, make sure that your application matches
that area. It’s really important that you talk with the program officer for that
area. Stephanie mentioned support in year one and two. That, too, I want to emphasize that that’s what we like to see. If you are going beyond that, we will certainly not
like to entertain anything beyond year three, but for year three, you should
strongly justify if you are going for support of the students in
year three. The website – we want to see some real meat in the website. Talk about NIGMS
support of training programs and not be simply a website about the
department or the graduate program in general so we are looking for training
programs to have a website that talks about NIGMS support and our
expectations are that’s where you’re going to post the outcomes. But with that,
DR. LORSCH (speaking): You’re going to – we’re going to put up these slides right? DR. SINGH (speaking): yes. DR. LORSCH (speaking):
And we’ve also recorded this – the training – the actual audio and the slides will be available. DR. SINGH (speaking): Right, so as Jon said, as we did last year, we will post the slides, the
videos, and like last year we’ll also try to update our frequently
asked questions – the questions that you might have – if they turn out to be
unique we’ll include them as well on our website. So Dr. Rubio – DR. RUBIO (speaking:) Thank you,
and I want to thank everybody who has already submitted questions and please
feel free to continue to do so. One of the first questions we were asked is which
are the new T32 tables that are required and I put in the chat that is
table 1, table 2, table 3, table 4, table 5a, table 6a, and table 8a, part 3.
That’s good. ok, so everybody should have that on your chat. The next question asked – if the applicants will be required to use xTract to create the table. DR. GAMMIE (speaking): I believe
that the requirement for T32s coming in for what year? 2020. So look for that
but I think they put out a notice. We can, we can include a link maybe on the
PowerPoint when we post it just so that you have it. But, you can probably find that. But, yes, that requirement is definitely there. DR. RUBIO (speaking): Another question is I would like more information on how to assign multiple affiliations to a trainer that
is the Graduate group and a department. Part two of that question also if there
are any specific training programs for use of xTract that would be helpful. DR. SINGH (speaking): So Part 2, (cross-talk) So the xTract is coming up – I don’t think it’s applicable this round, correct? (cross-talk): No, 2020.
DR. SINGH (speaking): Now, anybody here wants to take part 1 of the question – will there be training
for xTract when it becomes a requirement? DR. GAMMIE (speaking): Yes absolutely and I think we
just put a few resources for XTrain, xTract in the slide and you should go to the
links – there’s videos and then they also have a pretty responsive support team in real time. You’re welcome to use it at this time if you want, it’s just not a requirement.
DR. LORSCH (speaking): We’re actually working with closely with eRA to upgrade xTract and xTrain to make it actually more useful for both you and us so that should be
coming soon too. DR. RUBIO (speaking): Would you like me to repeat part one of that question? How to
assign multiple affiliations to a trainer that is a graduate group and a
department? DR. SINGH (speaking): I’m not sure how important it is – Alison Cole, do you
want to weigh in? DR. COLE (speaking): Well I think probably in the table where you list the faculty you
can put whatever you want in their departmental affiliation, you can put multiple things in there, I believe. DR. LORSCH (speaking): And their biosketch too can have multiple lines. DR. RUBIO (speaking): Another question – If there’s a new
graduate school program that has been in existence for approximately six years
and only has a few number of graduates thus far is it okay to use outcomes from
individual departments that will be involved in the training? DR. GAMMIE (speaking): Yes I think
that’s what we actually put in the instructions – so yes that’s the
intention so either previous graduate programs that similar students so yes, that’s fine. DR.RUBIO (speaking): The next question – I am confused about about the MST, funding
for MST. Generally we fund the first two years of medical school, not graduate
school, can you please clarify? DR. GAMMIE (speaking): Sorry, years one through three of the
graduate training right? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER (speaking): So different programs have different models for
funding. Many programs do fund during the medical school year. DR. RUBIO (speaking): Okay the next question. Do you recommend that the institutional letter of support from the
President or the Vice President to address criteria and then obtain other
letters from associate deans? DR. GAMMIE (speaking): No, so what we want to see for the institutional letters and in all of the bullet points that I listed in the slides that should be a single 10- page letter from an institutional
official and you know it just needs to be a fairly high-ranking – we’re not
going to specify exactly what type of official but it should be a high-ranking
official. If there are additional letters of support that don’t address
those criteria if there’s collaboration with other institutions,
or other types of letters of support, those can also be included.
They should be separate but all of the things that we were asking for
should be in a single 10 page letter signed by one or many institutional
officials. DR. RUBIO (speaking): And where can I get a copy of today’s PowerPoint slides? DR. SINGH (speaking): On our website hopefully within the next week or so. DR. RUBIO (speaking): I do not understand how to describe an advisory committee without listing the name of the committee’s
members. DR. SINGH (speaking): Well you can talk about what the functions of that committee would be,
what they would actually be doing without really naming anyone and you can
talk about perhaps would they be internal or external members. But, as
Stephanie said do not name them. DR. CONSTANT (speaking): And also what types of individuals, what types of
expertise you want to bring in onto the committee. DR. RUBIO (speaking): Regarding the faculty mentors biosketch, does the evidence for commitment to mentoring and training
replace the contributions to science or does this only go in the personal space?
DR. GAMMIE (speaking): So the typical biosketch you’re allowed to have the scientific
publications that are relevant to the training area so it would be good
choosing among the publications of the faculty member to choose the ones that
really are are most relevant to the training area. It’s perfectly fine to
mention the scientific area and the rigor with which they conduct their
scientific research because that’s part of it but what we do want to see in the
personal statement is not just that they took it straight from their r01 grant
and popped it in the training grant, what we want to see is that there’s an
understanding first of all that they’re on this training grant, and second of all
that they actually take the time to articulate what their
training and mentoring philosophies are and perspectives are so I think we it’s
actually a kind of combination of scientific approach, rigor, but also
training the next generation of scientists. DR. LORSCH (speaking): Not to be in the personal statement – DR. GAMMIE (speaking): Right. DR. LORSCH (speaking): So that needs to be rewritten to be for the training grant.
DR. GAMMIE (speaking): Right. DR. RUBIO (speaking): We have a question about letters again. We have another institution that
participates in our program. I assume that that should be a separate letter
from that institution? DR. SINGH (speaking): It should be the same letter and it can be signed by the
officials from both institutions, but one single letter. DR. GAMMIE (speaking): I think particularly when it comes to aspects of the research training environment for example in the
laboratories, but there are some components that are specific to the applicant
institution. So yeah, having them in a combined, having a single letter with
multiple signatures is the way to go. DR. RUBIO (speaking): If your institution holds an award that
supports an MSTP, can you also submit a proposal for a T32 that would support
dual-degree students in another professional school, say veterinarian medicine? DR. SINGH (speaking): No. So you can have only one MSTP, and that’s the only dual-degree, now in
that program you could have DVM and in other words, DVM is allowed now, but
but you can’t have two programs. DR. RUBIO (speaking): No double-dipping, folks. (laughing) That’s the moral of that story. For
Table 6A, how would you suggest we account for current MD/Ph.D. students who
did not directly enter through the MD/ Ph.D. admissions process, but will enter
the regular MD program before transitioning into the MD/Ph.D. program in years two or
three? DR. SINGH (speaking): So here’s the problem – our table guru is not here. He’s somewhere in
Europe, and I suggest that you send me an email and I’ll forward it to him – I’ll
talk to him when he comes back. That’s Dr. John Laffan, unless Lisa, if you are
on the phone and you want to weigh in, that’s fine, if not we’ll answer any questions on
the tables when John comes back. I do want to point out there are two
websites on the training tables, a general one and also, one on the
questions that came up last time, so hopefully your question will be answered,
but if looking through those questions and answers, if you still don’t see
answers to your specific question, please send it to me by email. DR. NEWMAN (speaking): Hi this is Lisa. Basically you would just list them and I think it’s table…I want to say it’s like Table 8. You
list them and you just say what their first year was and you can actually just
state it. You just would list them the same way. It would be listed by the year of their degrees and the year they – when they finished a bachelor’s
degree. But the year they entered the program, they still entered the same way
they’re entering the program. Does that make any sense? DR. RUBIO (speaking): Hopefully to the person who asked that question, yes, that provided some clarity. So here’s another question – Can
you comment on the need to align with a specific graduate program? Will the
mechanisms support transdisciplinary programs that supports training in
specific skillsets as an enhancement program for students in other graduate programs to obtain additional qualifications, to obtain
additional help? DR. GAMMIE (speaking): I think the answer here is this is this is a conversation
directly with your Program Officer or what we can sort of take this as a side
conversation, but I think the short answer is we have examples of
multidisciplinary training programs that they really have to have you know
specific and measurable goals, that there has to be training outcomes that are
robust for this training program, that are distinct from the seating department.
We certainly don’t want to see just piling more requirements on top of
existing graduate programs, so it has to be a sort of thoughtful, coherent
training program with specific and measurable goals. But we’re happy to talk about this more in depth and taking on your particular case.
DR. RUBIO (speaking): I don’t see any additional ones so I just thank everyone, please keep them
coming. DR. SINGH (speaking): So we have
a few more minutes left, and then if you have any other questions please put that
in your chat box, and then just in case you come up with a question later on
after the webinar is over, feel free to shoot me an email and and we’ll get back
to you as soon as we can. DR. RUBIO (speaking): I have two additional ones. Can you provide specific
examples for how to meet the reproducibility requirement? DR. GAMMIE (speaking): So what we did is we’ve given you some examples of resources and we emphasized that your
peers were given awards to develop training modules or to develop different
training activities around rigor and reproducibility so these are some
examples. And they’re provided on the PowerPoint presentation. But I think
that one of the things you should think about is that you don’t want to
necessarily parrot something that somebody else has
done. What you want to do is you think hard about your training program and
what rigor and transparency means in your particular field and that’s going
to be different depending on the discipline so there are aspects of it
that are kind of shared and universal and that that’s true, but then there are
key pieces that make a particular training programs relevant to the science
being affected by these individuals. So don’t necessarily just look to find
something that you can you know slot in. I think it really has to be, as we said,
it’s got to be threaded throughout the entire training program because it’s
integral to excellence in training. But if you’re curious about
some of these creative things your colleagues have done, we point you to
some resources on the webpage. DR. LORSCH (speaking): Let me just amplify that because that goes back to what I was saying at the beginning, which is everything that’s happening in
your training program at some level should be focused on creating scientists who do rigorous and reproducible research. So if you’re just thinking we
want to add something to our curriculum to check that box you’re going down very
much the wrong path. As Alison said, you need to make sure that throughout the entire
curriculum, everything that’s happening, throughout the mentored research,
everything that’s happening, is getting to this point of making scientists who are
doing rigorous and reproducible research. DR. RUBIO (speaking): Ready for another question? Can a pre-doc T32 support an MD/ Ph.D. student on its grant when an MD/Ph.D. student is
conducting his Ph.D. research in that training program? DR. SINGH (speaking): So, Alison Cole? Well, one exception is molecular medicine? DR. COLE (speaking): Yes, so the molecular medicine program, I think, is the only exception. to that. Other ones that is allowable. If
you think about the goal of the molecular medicine program is to provide
medical clinical experience for Ph.D. students and obviously medical students
already get that so there are not a lot of them. That’s the only program, though,
where that happens. DR. RUBIO (speaking): Is it better to follow the application structure in the PA
and slides rather than those on the SF-424 forms? DR. GAMMIE (speaking): So, I mean that’s a good point – so what we try to do is we didn’t want to have redundancy between
the FOA and then the application form. So look very carefully at the
beginning of each section and it will say either follow it directly and then
you must go to that document and you follow that to the law. Sometimes
you’ll see follow with the following exceptions, and then you follow the
FOA and the FOA always supersedes the instructions in the form. So we didn’t
want to you know reiterate everything that they said in those forms, so we
pointed you there for that specific part, but then if it says that,
you go with what it says in the FOA and I’ll give you an example of that, which
is the biosketches. That is where the FOA supersedes and we
say you need to have a personal statement to discuss your mentoring, your
commitment to mentoring, so that’s one obvious example. DR. LORSCH (speaking): So start with
the FOA, that’s what you want to start with. Read that whole thing and then it will tell you when you’ve got to go to the other form. DR. GAMMIE (speaking): Right. DR. RUBIO (speaking): Someone in the community wants to thank you all for a great presentation and
yes, the slides in the video is going to be made available on our website. If
you haven’t signed up for our NIGMS Feedback Loop, please do so because that’s
sometimes where we actually always let you know what has been posted on our
website. I don’t see any additional questions. DR. SINGH (speaking): Anything that the program staff would
like to add that we haven’t covered? Lisa? Well then in that case I want to
thank everyone, especially Jon and Alison, and Stephanie, Mercedes and everyone here. So thank you very much and I look forward to working with you. Hopefully if
you have a question, you will not hesitate sending that by email to us.
Thank you. And Good Luck – See you at the TWD Meeting.