Opinion: Are senior scientists better writers?

The argument that new, shorter NIH grant applications will favor more experienced investigators (an idea presented in a recent story on The Scientist's site) assumes that senior scientists are better writers, and that the new format favors better writers because they will have to express themselves much more concisely. The shorter format provides less than one half of the space of the original, so writing will have to be more compact.

But the assumption that senior scientists are better writers is not supported by solid facts or evidence. The most successful senior scientists are certainly more experienced at writing grant proposals in the old format, but there are plenty of senior scientists who have no NIH grant funding, either because they couldn't get it or haven't tried.

Image: Morgan Giddings

Amongst those who are experienced and have successfully attracted NIH funding, there is a lot of angst over how to write proposals in the new format. I recently submitted several proposals for funding through the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act of 2009, which were written in the new shortened format.

I started out trying to write these like I had written successful R01 proposals in the past. Once I got to about 15 pages (3 pages over the limit), and still had a lot to write, I had to stop myself and rethink my strategy. I made several attempts at re-writing, finally arriving at something that I thought was "adequate" but not great. The first proposal I submitted didn't get a great score -- much worse than all the scores on my recent R01's. However, my proposal was funded, which means my own struggles were no worse than anyone else's.

I've talked to numerous colleagues who are scratching their heads over how to write a proposal in the new format. Most of these people are experienced, R01-funded investigators, and they are going to have to "re-learn" much of their approach to grant writing.

There are still some elements in common with the old format -- e.g. the importance of writing concise and focused specific aims statement -- but senior scientists who are experienced R01 writers aren't likely to just jump into the new format seamlessly.

The new format will favor better story tellers -- those people who can step back and paint a motivating picture about why the research they propose is important and relevant. It will disfavor those who in the past have been able to rely, not on good writing, but on providing so much experimental detail and so much preliminary evidence that the reviewers almost can't say no (since the work is virtually done already).

While some younger scientists struggle with storytelling and employing a big picture perspective, many senior scientists do too. That is because there is virtually no systematic training, anywhere, for learning those skills. People occasionally acquire them through unusually great mentors, or learn them through trial and error. But poor writing is not just an affliction of young scientists.

In science, almost everything favors better writers! This applies to the old format, the new format, or any written-word format that NIH might devise in the future.

My own successes in writing have been hard-won. When I was in high school, I struggled at writing and was put into remedial English as a senior. Because of that, I ended up in a remedial writing class my freshman year in college. I eventually got tired of being labeled as needing remediation and decided to do something about it. I have worked hard and consistently since then -- for 20 years and counting -- to improve my writing skills. It is a never ending process, and I am still improving, but I've since had multiple R01's funded on the first round of submission, written an article that has been accessed over 10,000 times, authored a chapter in one of the best-selling bioinformatics texts, and more. Successful writing isn't about innate ability, it's about hard work and a willingness to learn and improve continually.

I recently had a discussion with a senior scientist about the new format. I told him that I was surprised that a mediocre score on my recent proposal was fundable. He told me that a similar thing had happened in the early 90's with the last big format change. He said that after that revamping of the format and scoring system, scores were distributed across the spectrum, with many people receiving worse scores than they were accustomed to, but still getting funding. After some time, scores gradually got better, a form of "grade inflation." This grade inflation was due to a concurrent improvement in people's writing within the new requirements, and reviewers updating their expectations.

Adoption of the new NIH grant applications not only requires the grant writers to learn the system, but it requires reviewers to learn the format and change their expectations. On my ARRA proposal, I got scolded by reviewers for "lack of detail." How can one provide detail in 12 pages? There is no way to do that without leaving out a lot of the big picture. Since reviewers aren't accustomed to reading proposals in the new format, a lot of them seem to expect the level of detail provided in the old 25 page format. But, after a few rounds of reviewing the new, shortened format, they'll become accustomed to less detailed proposals, and inevitably scores will get better and better.

This provides a window of opportunity for young and old investigators alike to get "good grades" while everyone is still struggling to figure it out. It does take some preparation and foresight. But most people are so busy these days, that they won't have time to prepare, and will just sit down to start writing as they always have done -- and find themselves stymied.

Morgan Giddings, PhD, was trained in physics, computer science, and bioinformatics. She holds a faculty position in Microbiology and Immunology, Biomedical Engineering, and Computer Science at The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She has recently created a blog focused on grant writing, scientific story telling and marketing in science. She has also been involved in many entrepreneurial adventures, including founding a company for kayak manufacturing using recycled plastics, serving on the board of directors at several scientific instrument producers, and co-founding a bike shop.

Related stories:

New NIH forms raise concerns
[8th December 2009]

Right your Writing
[November 2009]

Stimulus Application? Not Me
[June 2009]

Ten Ways to Write a Better Grant
[January 2007]