I'm what you might describe as being in my late mid-career stage. (I'm not ready for that late career part yet, thank you very much.) Most of my career I've managed to keep my lab funded and humming along. Not so much the last few years. I've scraped together little pots of money here and there, but have failed to pull in the NSF-level grants that have supported me much of my professional life. There are reasons behind this extended funding lapse, but the bottom line is I have no one to blame but myself.*
I'm doing my best to pull out of the spiral. Writing grants etc. Not panicking of course, but also trying not to miss any opportunities. And there are glimmers of hope. I've been getting closer and closer to fundable scores. Like well within reach close. Not at the NSF though. At the NIH. NIH proposals are not like NSF proposals. And I don't mean the whole medical relevance thing. They feel different. At least to me they do. And of course the NIH review process is very unlike that at NSF.
It's been, and continues to be, an education. Much of what I've learnt has come from the intertube's very own Grumpy Curmudgeon Grant Fairy, the Statler to @PhysioProf's Waldorf**, Bane of Co-First Authorship, and Untiring Champion of Author-Date Citations, the inimitable DrugMonkey. His "Your Grant in Review" series has proven invaluable. And judging by the comments, many of his readers agree.
Happy #drugmonkeyday my friend.
* I've tried blaming others. It doesn't seem to help. Go figure.
** Or is it Waldorf to @PhysioProf's Statler? Aged Starsky or Hutch? Laurel or Hardy?