archive-org.com » ORG » P » PRINCIPALINVESTIGATORS.ORG

Total: 174

Choose link from "Titles, links and description words view":

Or switch to "Titles and links view".
  • The Mentor-Mentee Relationship in the Modern Lab: Top Mentee Qualities Revealed + Free Webinar MP4 | Principal Investigators Association
    insightful Webinar will address tips and techniques that all mentors and mentees can employ to manage good relationships in everyday lab settings Key Take Aways Time management of the mentor mentee relationship during a busy time Meeting the challenge of making every meeting open honest and effective Five Communications qualities every mentee should develop Tips to growing an effective mentor mentee relationship Who Should Attend All PIs and researchers who want to enrich their new or seasoned mentor mentee relationship This Webinar will provide effective guidelines for newer mentees as they begin thinking about starting and strengthening a relationship with their mentor Rick Parmely After teaching undergraduate chemistry at West Point and Juniata College Rick joined Restek in 1997 and currently directs their technical education program He teaches chemistry and separation science theory through the Restek Learning Network RLN and coaches other RLN instructors in public speaking He taught Public Speaking to doctoral and post doctoral students at Yale Columbia and Rockefeller Universities as part of a Howard Hughes Medical Institute Program Recently Rick presented a full day communications workshop at The Pittsburgh Conference With over 30 years of teaching experience Rick has taught science and communications courses to widely diverse audiences including NATO officials technicians at the U N Pesticides Laboratory in Austria and scientists at the University of Nairobi Penn State University and UPenn Price Purchase this 60 Minute On Demand Webinar in CD Rom MP4 or PDF Transcript for only 197 149 BONUS Order today and you will also receive the 60 minute Webinar entitled The Mentoring Relationship What a Good Mentor Should Know What the Mentee Should Anticipate in MP4 format with your purchase a 179 value yours free Please note Each format includes the presentation handouts in PDF CDs are mailed within 48 hours A

    Original URL path: https://principalinvestigators.org/product/the-mentor-mentee-relationship-in-the-modern-lab/ (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • No. 132: What is “Innovative Research” anyway? | Principal Investigators Association
    R15 Grant Application Manual NSF Grant Application Mentor An Educational How to Manual How to Prepare an Award Winning Oral Presentation Webinar Pack Time Management Toolkit Lab Management Executive Report Library R01 Research Strategy Insider Tips to Ace the Most Important Part of Your Proposal NIH Short Form Answers to 16 Frequently Asked Questions Crowdfunding Why You Should Jump On This Innovative Funding Source New OLAW Guide Sets a High Bar for Cage Sizes Your NSF Funding Crucial Changes to Merit Review How do you stay between the lines of keeping your research innovative but not too risky Your research doesn t have to create a new paradigm to be innovative In fact the NIH says you want to think outside of the box but not too far They go on to say the goal then is significant incremental progress not a giant leap forward Innovation then can be combining known methods to do something novel Use these tips to demonstrate your innovation First explain how you are challenging or seeking to shift current research or clinical practice paradigms How are things done now how are you going to change it and why is it better than how it s being done currently Second describe novel concepts approaches methods instruments or interventions that you will develop and or use Then explain how this is an advantage over the existing method instrumentation or intervention Ask yourself how is your method or instrumentation going to be better How are they going to serve research Then third what are your refinements or improvements Detail the application of new concepts approaches methods instrumentation or interventions that you re going to use These should describe how you are going to refine or change anything that is new Being innovative and knowing how your research is

    Original URL path: https://principalinvestigators.org/no-132-what-is-innovative-research-anyway/ (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • No. 131: Combating Interruptions for PI’s | Principal Investigators Association
    you double your interruptions the time for the interruption plus the time to log it PIs tend to question assumptions so you likely will take more time wondering about a taxonomy that doesn t address why something has become such high priority It was smoke last week but now it s a brush fire Consequently you wonder what counts as a worthless interruption It doesn t address internal interruptions and your own distractions 2 Review your personal communications tool settings and policies You should distinguish between internal interruptions and external ones says Janice Russell a professional organizer with Minding Your Matters in Cary N C Both will cost you valuable minutes that can add up And some interruptions are a combination of external and internal something catches your interest and you follow it Communications for example are usually such a combination Example You re writing up a quarterly report for your grant Program Office You enabled pop up windows for an e mail account just in case something important comes along A pop up shows a Linked In connection request from Bob a former colleague Gosh what s Bob been up to You click on the window and you re down the rabbit trail learning more about Bob leaving your report behind Suggestions Disable your e mail pop ups Instead plan to check e mail at specific times each day and consider delaying the send and receive settings Also keep your cell phone on vibrate to avoid disrupting calls and texts and check it only after it vibrates In addition you can use caller ID and set a personal policy that you ll answer only for specific people 3 Become aware of self distractions that interrupt your work You can lose a lot of time both following the distraction and regaining focus Intrusive thoughts are a big interrupter and energy drainer Even the most disciplined PIs will not focus completely on a task for a full eight hour day says Russell And it s not reasonable to expect you will Example The highest priority is to finish your grant application But three of your best students need letters of recommendation and so does a colleague You have a meeting to prepare for and there s a conference presentation coming up As you collect the data for your application your thoughts interrupt you about each of these other tasks Suggestion Plan and schedule blocks of time to accomplish each of these tasks Setting aside specific time for the assignments should settle your mind and lead to a stronger focus on the task at hand because you know when you ll handle these other issues 4 Ask if you re susceptible to perfectionism Most PIs find attention to detail is what got them where they are You can lose time however if you make the perfect the enemy of the good Example You have X Y and Z tasks for the day explains Russell Say X is a report and you like

    Original URL path: https://principalinvestigators.org/no-131-combating-interruptions-for-pis/ (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • No. 130 Am I Eligible for the NSF CAREER Award? | Principal Investigators Association
    Participatory Action Research from A to Z A Comprehensive Guide Interdisciplinary Research Teams Guide Qualitative Research IRB A Comprehensive Guide NSF Grant Application Mentor An Educational How to Manual NIH R01 Funding Toolkit Writing in Science and Medicine Guide NIH Career Development K Awards Manual The Ins and Outs of NIH R Grants Multi methods Research Design for Applied and Translational Projects Guide NIH R01 Manual 4th Edition Revising and Resubmitting NIH Proposals Guide NIH R21 Grant Application Manual NIH R15 Grant Application Manual NSF Grant Application Mentor An Educational How to Manual How to Prepare an Award Winning Oral Presentation Webinar Pack Time Management Toolkit Lab Management Executive Report Library R01 Research Strategy Insider Tips to Ace the Most Important Part of Your Proposal NIH Short Form Answers to 16 Frequently Asked Questions Crowdfunding Why You Should Jump On This Innovative Funding Source New OLAW Guide Sets a High Bar for Cage Sizes Your NSF Funding Crucial Changes to Merit Review No 130 Am I Eligible for the NSF CAREER Award Reader Question I work at a public private non profit organization Am I eligible for the NSF CAREER Award Expert Comments The answer is yes but of course that institution has to meet these five eligibility criteria The Five Eligibility Criteria Your organization doesn t offer a tenure track The research you re doing must be supported in an area that the NSF supports You have to have a long term appointment here They re looking at something that s going to last at least for the proposed five years of duration of this grant You have to have educational responsibilities in some way Let s suppose you re hired just as a pure research professor with no educational responsibilities that won t work Your position and your

    Original URL path: https://principalinvestigators.org/no-130-am-i-eligible-for-the-nsf-career-award/ (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • 129: R01 or R21: Which Would You Recommend for an Early Investigator? | Principal Investigators Association
    of Your Proposal NIH Short Form Answers to 16 Frequently Asked Questions Crowdfunding Why You Should Jump On This Innovative Funding Source New OLAW Guide Sets a High Bar for Cage Sizes Your NSF Funding Crucial Changes to Merit Review No 129 R01 or R21 Which Would You Recommend for an Early Investigator Reader question I am a new investigator and I am having difficulty deciding if I should submit an R01 or a R21 Could you please tell me how to choose between the two of them Expert comments Keep these in mind before deciding Major Differences The R01 is NIH s standard independent research grant designed to provide support for a specified circumscribed project for which you generally need preliminary data You can request up to five years and depending upon your budget type up to 500 000 per year in support Note If you do request more than 500 000 per year in support you will need the Program Officer s permission to apply The R01 s Research Strategy is 12 pages in length In comparison the R21 is an exploratory developmental funding mechanism and your proposed research should have a WOW factor meaning it could lead to a research breakthrough or new methodology The R21 is a one to two year grant and preliminary data is not required Applicants can request up to 275 000 for the two years combined and the Research Strategy should be no more than six pages long Preliminary data The rule is NIH does not require preliminary data for an R21 But it s nice to have according to Dorothy Lewis PhD professor of Internal Medicine at the University of Texas Health Science Center Reviewers are human beings and they like to see some evidence that what you propose is going to work The best evidence of that is usually preliminary data For the R01 preliminary is required Lewis recommends you have at least one piece of data to support each aim that you propose Note If you already have a lot of data and apply for an R21 reviewers may say This isn t exploratory In that case you may not have a choice other than the R01 Length may decide for you The amount of time you need to accomplish your research project will play a key role in determining which grant is the best fit For example if you need three years of recruitment for your project then applying for an R21 doesn t make sense A sk yourself What is the length of the project If it is shorter term project that is novel and exploratory and you don t have much preliminary data then the R21 is likely your best bet Do not make the mistake of thinking the R21 will be easier to write because it has fewer pages than the R01 Having only six pages for the R21 project description creates a challenge In those six pages there has to be an amazing clear

    Original URL path: https://principalinvestigators.org/129-r01-or-r21-which-would-you-recommend-for-an-early-investigator/ (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • 128: The Scope of Your Research Plan: Find the Best Way Up the Mountain | Principal Investigators Association
    early is a critical aspect of grantsmanship because you have to strike the correct balance between proposing enough work to achieve significant impact is the mountain high enough and not suggesting so much that reviewers think you overly ambitious too many routes or won t get high enough to make a difference How broad should scope be Keep in mind also that your expedition has a fixed budget that will allow you to hire only a set number of climbers This means you have to think carefully about the routes the Specific Aims for your personnel Your scope should move the field forward up the mountain rather than sideways If other researchers have made an interesting observation in your field in one organism don t assume that reviewers will be excited if you simply attempt to validate the same observation in a related species particularly if the proposed work only takes your understanding to the same reported level of detail On the other hand examining the same research question in a different species could be useful if that system has unique features better genetics easier to screen phenotypes and easier biochemistry that allow you to obtain more detailed data than the original system Remember reviewers are trying to uncover the new information s perceived value Will it provide novel insights that your competitors in the original system won t arrive at tomorrow Scope should also provide depth to your research plan and insurance against any one approach s failure Experienced reviewers know that despite the most detailed plans experiments don t always go as planned and approaches fall short for unanticipated reasons Thus your proposal should include a built in redundancy and no single aim should depend on another s success Reviewers typically spot and frequently reject this as a linear proposal where each aim represents a technical milestone that relies on a prior aim s success Instead employ a parallel strategy where your individual aims represent individual climbers Accordingly if one goes spectacularly well you may want to re deploy the efforts of the others Thus in your proposal design you should always expect the unexpected and convince your readers that you ve engineered your plan while directed toward the summit to be flexible and responsive to the results that you obtain Limitations on scope NIH s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease NIAID advises new and early stage investigators to keep their scopes fairly conservative A key point NIAID repeatedly stresses is to avoid at all costs the dreaded overly ambitious reviewers critique The agency also writes Be innovative but be wary and As a new investigator your goal should be significant incremental progress not a giant leap forward This advice is somewhat problematic because reviewers usually use the term incremental in a pejorative context In my experience there is no such thing as a totally risk free high impact outstanding application Rather you should propose just enough risk both in intellectual novelty and technical capability to

    Original URL path: https://principalinvestigators.org/128-the-scope-of-your-research-plan-find-the-best-way-up-the-mountain/ (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Revising and Resubmitting NIH Proposals Guide | Principal Investigators Association
    to substantially differ in both content and scope in order to be eligible for submission as a new application However for all application due dates after April 16 2014 if your resubmission application A1 was unsuccessful at receiving funding you may now submit the same idea as a new A0 application for the next appropriate new application due date This change in resubmission policy applies to applications submitted to all grant and cooperative agreement funding opportunities that allow resubmissions including all fellowship training and career development awards CLICK HERE TO PREVIEW Section 2 Understanding Reviewer Scores and Comments Once a grant is submitted to NIH it goes to the Division of Receipt and Referral at the Center for Scientific Review where it is reviewed for completeness and assigned to a Scientific Review Group SRG for peer review Most grants go to centralized SRGs that serve all institutes handling all proposals in a particular set of topics or approaches The reviewers on these panels are recruited by the Scientific Review Officers SRO for their expertise The roster of review panel members are published in the Federal Register by NIH typically 15 days prior to the meeting and an applicant can request that a reviewer with a conflict of interest in a particular proposal not be assigned to review that proposal These requests are confidentially handled by the SRO and not passed on to reviewers so applicants are encouraged to make their concerns clear However as one investigator interviewed for this guide noted reviewers who do not like your work could talk to other reviewers and influence your grant s outcomes even if they do not review it That said reviewers do sign a legally binding document which affirms that they will maintain confidentiality These issues will be discussed later under the section Appeals PARs RFAs or very specific proposals such as an R24 mechanism or training and center grants may be reviewed by a special review panel assembled for that purpose In this case the program officers will suggest reviewers based on the topics of the proposals and the program announcement The SRO will take these suggestions under advisement when assembling the review panel CLICK HERE TO PREVIEW Section 3 Appeals In cases where there is or appears to be a clear flaw in the peer review process for a particular proposal it may be possible to appeal a review Allowable grounds for an appeal include evidence of bias conflict of interest lack of appropriate expertise within the Scientific Review Group or factual error s made by one or more reviewers that could have altered the outcome of the review substantially Appeals should only be considered if the applicant can provide evidence to support their case The goal of the appeal is to have the proposal reviewed again either with different reviewers or a different scientific review group NIH s policy on appeals was released in April 2011 and it applies to any proposal submitted after January 2011 The Institutes and Centers can create deadlines for appeals but those deadlines must allow 30 days after review so that the comments and summaries are available to investigators Appeals only should be considered after thoroughly reviewing the comments CLICK HERE TO PREVIEW Section 4 Strategies to Address Common Problems After reviewing the comments and talking with your program officer you decide that you want to revise and resubmit your proposal How can you address problems raised by the review committee Remember that you need to address all criticisms raised If you do not agree with the reviews or want to change the project as reviewers suggest you need to address and respond to the points the reviewers raise While each proposal is unique and your major goal is to respond to your reviewer s comments some strategies have proven effective with common problems in NIH proposals A classic study of NIH research grants published by Allen in the November 1960 issue of Science Volume 132 found the following major reasons that proposals were turned down Problem 58 percent Approach 73 percent Investigator 55 percent Other 16 percent institutional issues budget problems not following directions insufficient time sloppy presentation While the approach is often a key part of the proposal people involved in the review process now note that significance and impact are increasingly important reasons that a proposal is turned down The investigator may have a good idea but if it doesn t move the science forward in a substantial way present an innovation in current practice or have the potential of making a clinical advance it may not receive funding Investigators need to not only be clear about their project but connect their research to its impact on the field If the project itself may have limited impact but is an important step that will lead to future breakthroughs it is critical that the knowledge gap the proposed project aims to fill needs to be spelled out clearly in the application CLICK HERE TO PREVIEW Section 5 Revising Your Proposal for Resubmission Once you make the decision to revise the proposal for a resubmission A1 or as a new proposal A0 under the current policy for resubmission you will need to take a number of steps to prepare your revised proposal Many of these steps occur before you begin writing If the reviewers had concerns with your significance or impact you may need to do additional research or talk with others to identify potential concrete clinical outcomes or changes in care that could come out of your project You will need to seek concrete examples so take the time to find all of the appropriate literature or identify where changes in clinical practice or care could come out of your project You may want to add an additional outcome that involves translating your work into practice which could involve identifying a partner to try that translational product out If the reviewers have questions about the investigator or team that can t be

    Original URL path: https://principalinvestigators.org/product/revising-and-resubmitting-nih-proposals-guide/ (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Advertise | Principal Investigators Association
    NSF Grant Application Mentor An Educational How to Manual NIH R01 Funding Toolkit Writing in Science and Medicine Guide NIH Career Development K Awards Manual The Ins and Outs of NIH R Grants Multi methods Research Design for Applied and Translational Projects Guide NIH R01 Manual 4th Edition Revising and Resubmitting NIH Proposals Guide NIH R21 Grant Application Manual NIH R15 Grant Application Manual NSF Grant Application Mentor An Educational How to Manual How to Prepare an Award Winning Oral Presentation Webinar Pack Time Management Toolkit Lab Management Executive Report Library R01 Research Strategy Insider Tips to Ace the Most Important Part of Your Proposal NIH Short Form Answers to 16 Frequently Asked Questions Crowdfunding Why You Should Jump On This Innovative Funding Source New OLAW Guide Sets a High Bar for Cage Sizes Your NSF Funding Crucial Changes to Merit Review Advertise With PIA Principal Investigators Association PIA provides you with access to an unparalleled and engaged audience We ve become a trusted resource to our readers and advertisers by providing relevant timely content and by working with our partners to develop new and innovative campaigns Download our Advertising Quick View Card Solutions Tailored to Your Needs PIA offers you a partnership with a number of results oriented advertising approaches that can be executed independently or combined based on your needs Hear What Our Customers Are Saying The response to our advertising campaign with the Principal Investigators Association far exceeded our expectations Through a combination of PI eAlerts custom e mails and a Web ad we were able to reach a large group of qualified potential customers and our month long campaign actually paid for itself within the first week Furthermore the staff at PIA was highly knowledgeable easy to work with and provided frequent and timely updates on

    Original URL path: https://principalinvestigators.org/advertise/ (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive



  •