After reading, we invite you to continue the discussion in our LinkedIn group or follow HigherEd Careers on Twitter.
Andrew Hibel, HigherEdJobs.com: How do you successfully balance being both a successful scientific researcher and an educator in academia?
Scott Franzblau, University of Illinois at Chicago: Almost all courses are team taught in our College of Pharmacy so few us have an overwhelming teaching load. In fact, I only give five or six lectures per semester — probably one of the lightest teaching loads in the college. Also, it gets easier each year as you need less and less time to prep for your lectures. Making sufficient time for my own graduate students is actually more challenging because this is a constant need of theirs. For this I haven’t found a good solution except to limit the number of students that I accept.
Hibel: Your laboratory, the Institute for Tuberculosis Research, is largely funded by the Global TB Alliance,1 a group dedicated to funding research for TB and other diseases. How does working with the TB Alliance compare to other revenue sources you have worked with in the past?
Franzblau: A breath of fresh air! Our focus is drug discovery and much of this work is straight-ahead stuff. The Alliance understands this since all their senior staff are former pharmaceutical/biotech industry scientists. So you don’t need to try to wow them with something very innovative as you do for NIH (National Institute of Health). Also, the Alliance gives you the amount of money you need to do the work, recognizing that drug discovery is not cheap! There are no pre-set limits.
Hibel: What has been the impact of the American Recovery Act2 (also known as the Stimulus Act) on the Institute for Tuberculosis Research? How has the Recovery Act impacted other labs and institutes you know and work with?
Franzblau: We have been partners on a couple of grants funded through the ARRA so it certainly has helped. Since we already were well-funded from other sources, it wasn’t as critical for us as for some of my collaborators. For many, this was really important to be able to keep those currently in the lab.
Hibel: Reading “Writing Successful Science Proposals,” I found the section on starting the application process particularly interesting and pertinent to someone trying to get their career off the ground.3 For researchers competing for their first grant, what are the obstacles you would warn them about?
Franzblau: To avoid the most common pitfalls of being too ambitious — having too many specific aims. One of the most common criticisms is that the proposal is not focused enough. Reviewers, as experienced and successful scientists themselves, usually have a pretty good feeling for what is feasible in a given time frame so don’t try to impress them by saying that you will do everything under the sun just because it is technically feasible (with unlimited time and resources). Another is to establish some type of relationship and then to solicit letters from those who have expertise in areas that might become problematic in your study. You don’t necessarily need to have salaries for them — you just need to show that they are committed to helping you in particular areas. Don’t be shy. Most established researchers are flattered if you ask and will rarely say no.
Hibel: According to the book, “Write a Successful NIH Grant Application,” many established scientists can expect to submit grant applications two or three times before getting an award, and success rates for applications from younger researchers are very low.4 What is your best advice to younger researchers about how to persevere through less than successful grant requests?
Franzblau: Be proactive about becoming a collaborator on the grants of others. Okay, so you are not the primary investigator (PI), but being on a funded project will give you some confidence and some credibility.
Hibel: A National Institute of Health (NIH) Grant is often considered prestigious.5 How does receiving a NIH grant help you receive other grants and help your career?
Franzblau: Well the NIH peer review is regarded as the most rigorous in the world so obviously if you are successful there, you gain instant credibility.
Hibel: You mentioned that being collaborative with others is a great way for younger researchers to get some experience. What are some good ways to learn of opportunities where primary investigators are looking for other researchers?
Franzblau: Probably the best way is by looking for requests for proposals from NIH or Gates Foundation that are program projects — that have more than one major component. Then it is a matter of knowing who is doing what in the field and writing directly to them and letting them know of your interest and availability to be a co-investigator or even a co-PI. Of course, the best opportunities would be those within your own institution. You might even be in the position of offering to do the majority of the legwork on the application if an older, established scientist is willing to function as the overall PI. This may work with someone who just doesn’t have the time or energy to consider submitting a program project but to whom the Request For Proposal (RFP) would obviously be of interest. Of course, another avenue is if you are very familiar with someone’s work and you know from checking online NIH databases that their grant is about to expire and that they are likely going in for a competitive renewal. If you see a way where you would fit into their project, you could approach them on that basis.
Hibel: After reading “Writing Successful Science Proposals” and “Guide to Effective Grant Writing: How to Write a Successful NIH Grant Application,” I felt that the NIH funding cycle is not exactly straightforward.6,7 How important is it to have a solid understanding of the interworking of the particular grant process, and what effect does that have on a person’s ability to be successful in the application?
Franzblau: Well, I think the issue here is mostly one of timing. None of us like the fact that the cycles are set up such that you have to sit out one cycle before re-submitting a proposal. But you need to consider this when planning what additional experiments you might need to do to have a stronger application on re-submission. Also, in most cases you need to be aware that you can submit supplementary data after the original deadline, but that it may or may not be considered by the reviewers. Probably the one that is most shocking is when you have different reviewers for the original versus re-submission and although you think that you have answered the first critique completely, now you have all new criticisms, some of which are because of the changes you made!
Hibel: In regards to awarding funding, what direction do you see the funding of scientific research heading? How do you think this will impact higher education science careers?
Franzblau: I am not one who follows this closely but the trend has been that it just continuously gets harder to be funded by the NIH. I remember my dissertation advisor telling me that when he was an assistant professor, most grants submitted were funded. I don’t know what kind of percentages he was talking about, but at the time he told me this I think approximately 25 percent of proposals were being funded and he was bemoaning how difficult it had become! As difficult as it is right now, I don’t see the situation improving. If the economy was hot, then considering the current administration and makeup of Congress I would think that it would improve, but the timing is very bad. The impact on higher education careers is obvious. As much as some of us would try to shield them from this part of doing science, the students are very aware of what is going on and are likely to become discouraged before they even really try to establish an academic career.
Hibel: How common is funding for labs from royalties from the intellectual property (trademarks and patents) that are realized from previous research?
Franzblau: I have to imagine that there are very few labs that obtain funding from royalty streams. Our institute is partially supported by such a stream but honestly I don’t personally know of any other researcher who has this luxury. It makes a huge difference to always have some discretionary funds and the challenge is to keep using them in that manner rather than becoming dependent upon them for survival during tough times.
Hibel: Please describe the process of being a “subcontractor” on grants that other researchers may receive. What are the benefits or challenges of being the subcontractor and taking on subcontractors?
Franzblau: The process is very straightforward. You are listed as a co-investigator and usually have a separate budget. In addition to writing your section of the research plan and submitting your biosketch, other funding and resources information, you are often also expected to write a letter of collaboration stating briefly what it is that you will do, indicating your enthusiasm for the project and your commitment. The benefit is that you are not directly responsible for filing reports, but of course you need to contribute to them. The only real downside is that you don’t get credit for being the PI and often have to list your funding source as another university of biotech and not NIH directly.
Hibel: As educational institutions change, sometimes that change takes them in a new direction and thus affects funding an institute. How should a faculty member react to an institutional change?
Franzblau: Oh, I suppose that really depends upon the nature of the change and on the specific situation of the researcher. I think that most of us try to ride the waves and do our best in our current situation. On the other hand, if you are on a roll with respect to funding and publications and if your personal situation allows it, you might consider looking around to see what other opportunities are out there. I tend to be a loyalist…to an extent. For me, the bottom line is having enough resources to have a reasonable chance of making a positive change in this world. My first loyalty is to those suffering from “neglected” diseases.
Hibel: What is your best advice to a higher education professional looking to further his or her career today?
Franzblau: Diversify! If you consider yourself primarily a researcher but are getting killed by the ridiculously low NIH paylines, consider 1) non-traditional funding sources and 2) becoming a great teacher (if you aren’t one already). There are a number of small foundations out there that support researchers working on rare or neglected diseases. The grants aren’t huge but can keep you going. For example, we have grants from the Potts Foundation (I challenge you to find their website!) and from the American Lung Association.
Becoming an exceptional teacher is not only very rewarding but can increase your value significantly in your institution. We all know that we are judged primarily on our research, but in a time when most are struggling, becoming a great teacher will help to set you apart and this is more a matter of effort than anything. That, and developing a genuine concern that the next generation is well educated and motivated.