In this creative writing piece, Dr. Thiel explores an alternate approach for the grant review process, ultimately concluding that the current pipeline is not inappropriately rigorous

Thiel, Kristina W.

English

Iowa Research Online

Proceedings in Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2013; 3(3
 
 
The Departments of 1Obstetrics and Gynecology
College of Medicine, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, USA. 
Please cite this paper as: Thiel, KW. The rat race of getting funded.
2 p.]. Available from: http://ir.uiowa.edu/pog/. Free full text article. 
Corresponding author: Kristina W. Thiel
of Iowa, 3234 MERF, Iowa City, IA 52242.  
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attri
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any 
medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
 
The rat r
Dr. Thiel is a scientific writer, editor, 
and consultant at the University of 
Iowa. 
I had a dream … a dream that one day, 
the grant review process would be 
revolutionized to allow applicants to 
orally defend their research plans.
After all, aren’t most people better at 
talking about their research th
about it? The all-time low funding lines 
have made getting funding for research 
ideas a nightmare. Not only is 
developing a solid research idea a must, 
but a grant can get rejected 
 and 2Internal Medicine, Roy J. and Lucille A. Carver 
 
 Proc Obstet Gynecol. 2013;3(3
 
, Departments of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Internal Medicine
kristina-thiel@uiowa.edu  
bution 3.0 Unported License 
 
ace of getting funded 
Kristina W. Thiel, PhD1,2 
 
 
  
an writing 
for not 
having the “little” things, like a 
reasonable budget justification or 
possible letters of support
navigating the grant process seems like 
being a participant in one of those 
extreme endurance physical challenges. 
Just a few nights ago, I was thinking 
about the upcoming review of a 
submitted grant. My dreams took over 
where my thoughts left off, and I was 
quickly transported to my “ideal” review 
scenario. Each applicant goes before 
the review panel and orally defends 
his/her ideas. The catch: if you have 
inadvertently missed a key component 
of the application or if there is a fatal 
flaw in your experimental design
have to face an unconventional
challenge … at 2am. The night before, 
one of the other applicants, who had not 
submitted a detailed description of how 
he was going to use mice, was throw
into a basement filled with 
number of mice he had proposed to use
His challenge was to ethically sacrifice 
the hungry mice before he was eaten 
himself, and without causing 
distress to his study subjects
before that, someone wh
was “descriptive, not mechanistic” had 
to figure out how her iPhone worked at 
the “molecular level.” Her designated 
tools were an ice pick and a spork 
 Supplement):6 
 Suppl):Article 6  [ 
, University 
all 
. Indeed, 
, you 
 
n 
the exact 
. 
undue 
. The night 
o’s research 
Proceedings in Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2013; 3(3 Supplement):6 
 
The rat race of grant funding  2 
 
because, in her grant, she justified not 
investigating mechanism by stating that 
no appropriate tools were currently 
available. Tonight was supposed to be 
my night, and I kept thinking of possible 
scenarios based on what I saw as the 
weaknesses in my grant application. As 
I heard the knock on the door, I braced 
myself for the upcoming challenge with 
a determination that, by God, I will get 
my grant funded! Then I realized that 
the knock was actually my alarm going 
off. I got out of bed feeling drained but 
with a new appreciation for our current 
review process. Perhaps it’s not such a 
rat race after all. 
 


The rat race of getting funded

Proceedings in Obstetrics and Gynecology

Proceedings in Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2013; 3(3  The Departments of 1Obstetrics and GynecologyCollege of Medicine, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, USA. Please cite this paper as: Thiel, KW. The rat race of getting funded.2 p.]. Available from: http://ir.uiowa.edu/pog/. Free full text article. Corresponding author: Kristina W. Thielof Iowa, 3234 MERF, Iowa City, IA 52242.  This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attri(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The rat rDr. Thiel is a scientific writer, editor, and consultant at the University of Iowa. I had a dream … a dream that one day, the grant review process would be revolutionized to allow applicants to orally defend their research plans.After all, aren’t most people better at talking about their research thabout it? The all-time low funding lines have made getting funding for research ideas a nightmare. Not only is developing a solid research idea a must, but a grant can get rejected  and 2Internal Medicine, Roy J. and Lucille A. Carver   Proc Obstet Gynecol. 2013;3(3 , Departments of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Internal Medicinekristina-thiel@uiowa.edu  bution 3.0 Unported License  ace of getting funded Kristina W. Thiel, PhD1,2     an writing for not having the “little” things, like a reasonable budget justification or possible letters of supportnavigating the grant process seems like being a participant in one of those extreme endurance physical challenges. Just a few nights ago, I was thinking about the upcoming review of a submitted grant. My dreams took over where my thoughts left off, and I was quickly transported to my “ideal” review scenario. Each applicant goes before the review panel and orally defends his/her ideas. The catch: if you have inadvertently missed a key component of the application or if there is a fatal flaw in your experimental designhave to face an unconventionalchallenge … at 2am. The night before, one of the other applicants, who had not submitted a detailed description of how he was going to use mice, was throwinto a basement filled with number of mice he had proposed to useHis challenge was to ethically sacrifice the hungry mice before he was eaten himself, and without causing distress to his study subjectsbefore that, someone whwas “descriptive, not mechanistic” had to figure out how her iPhone worked at the “molecular level.” Her designated tools were an ice pick and a spork  Supplement):6  Suppl):Article 6  [ , University all . Indeed, , you  n the exact . undue . The night o’s research Proceedings in Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2013; 3(3 Supplement):6  The rat race of grant funding  2  because, in her grant, she justified not investigating mechanism by stating that no appropriate tools were currently available. Tonight was supposed to be my night, and I kept thinking of possible scenarios based on what I saw as the weaknesses in my grant application. As I heard the knock on the door, I braced myself for the upcoming challenge with a determination that, by God, I will get my grant funded! Then I realized that the knock was actually my alarm going off. I got out of bed feeling drained but with a new appreciation for our current review process. Perhaps it’s not such a rat race after all.  

https://pubs.lib.uiowa.edu/pog/article/id/3850/download/pdf/

The rat race of getting funded

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Iowa Research Online

Proceedings in Obstetrics and Gynecology