NSF NIH suck?

May 25 2011 Published by under Careers

16 responses so far

  • Dr Becca says:

    You just made my week. That is all.

  • gerty-z says:

    YAY for the nipple-shirted-Odyssey!!!

  • Reading the comments on various blogges from the NIH-disgruntled, it is clear that most of these motherfuckers can't even write a clear grammatical sentence. I am not at all surprised they can't secure grant funding.

    • junky says:

      Dear CPP,

      "Language instinct" (by Pinker) you read should, I say,
      will help ya to think critically and logically ... I say...
      you need sa ... I say.

    • Well, some of us were born not speaking English. Subhuman, I know, but what can you do? Add the discipline-specific jargon and the wet-cement "style" required of writing scientific papers and you don't have a winning recipe for clarity and/or eloquence.

      The grants of the NIH-gruntled are just as crap-laden, in terms of both content and/or style. As you well know by now.

  • El Picador says:

    It is the anger that makes them incoherent CPP.

  • JollyRgr says:

    Bro that was awesome in it's awesomeness!!!

    The voice on the other hand is just not you........too deep and manly....:-)

  • docstymie says:

    allsome!

  • Goose says:

    You sound like an American Patrick Stewart...

  • Well, some of us were born not speaking English.

    Yet you manage to communicate coherently.

  • GMP says:

    This is a tough call: where is the point at which you tell yourself that you suck ass/your science sucks/you are a worthless piece of academic shit/you should look for a new job versus telling yourself that it was bad luck/low paylines/you just have to keep trying again and again/keep believing in your science.

    • Odyssey says:

      An extremely tough call. With paylines the way they are clearly a lot of excellent science is going unfunded. But that's not the fault of the funding agencies.

  • drugmonkey says:

    I would rather suggest that one view it as the priorities of the NIH having moved on, rather than saying any given investigator "sucks". In no small part because if that is the axis of decision, the PI has past experience showing that their work (and similar work) was fundable and perhaps even publishable in high journals. This leaves the "debate" down in a completely unhelpful place. Because you can "demonstrate objectively" that your science is just fine. therefore there must be INCOMPETENT REVIEW and BIAS!!!!

    Realizing the fundamental truth that the nature of what is competitive changes over time, leaving aside any supposed objective considerations, is what allows the PI to stop feeling sorry for himself and to start on a more successful line of attack on the grant game.

    In terms of the practicality of GMP's point, this is why taking a diverse approach to the grant writing, as opposed to trying to hammer through one specific set of Aims come hell or high water, is better. It allows you, in my view, to take advantage of the luck-of-the-draw rather than being killed by it...

    • GMP says:

      Unfortunately, there are a couple of things about the NSF that make diversifying in the sense of submitting many different proposals tricky. At least in the divisions I am familiar (they are in the MPS and ENGR directorates) you get only one (Sept/Oct submission window) or at best two (Jan/Feb and Sept/Oct) chances to submit unsolicited proposals, AND you are only allowed to submit one proposal as either a PI or co-PI per submission window. Essentially, it's one proposal per year or two at best (unless special solicitations come up). Therefore, it really can be difficult to decide, especially if you only have one annual shot to submit a single proposal, whether to resubmit your already rejected proposal or go with something new or perhaps go with a collaborative project... Now, I am a theorist who does fairly applied stuff plus plays well with experimentalists so I have funding with some of the DoD agencies, but there are number of people who do really basic math or physical science research (especially theory) and who are restricted to their single-proposal once-a-year shot at the NSF. For them these paylines can be completely devastating...