http://morganonscience.com/grantwriting/what-counts-as-innovation-in-the-new-nih-grant-format/ Helping You Get Recognized For The Great Science That You Do Fri, 10 Feb 2012 01:26:57 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 http://morganonscience.com/grantwriting/what-counts-as-innovation-in-the-new-nih-grant-format/comment-page-1/#comment-2405 Jeremy Tue, 27 Sep 2011 17:01:08 +0000 http://morganonscience.com/?p=247#comment-2405 Innovative ideas advance their respective fields. I would say the lifestraw advanced the field of preventative health care technology. What may be a challenge to grant applicants is communicating significance and innovation with greater constraints on word limit. Innovative ideas advance their respective fields. I would say the lifestraw advanced the field of preventative health care technology. What may be a challenge to grant applicants is communicating significance and innovation with greater constraints on word limit.

]]> http://morganonscience.com/grantwriting/what-counts-as-innovation-in-the-new-nih-grant-format/comment-page-1/#comment-1818 morgan Mon, 29 Nov 2010 21:12:07 +0000 http://morganonscience.com/?p=247#comment-1818 I agree with you that NIH can be too conservative. But that's the system we work in. My goal is to help people work in it optimally. While I'd love to change the system, change is slow. I do think the straw is innovative. If innovation isn't "inventing new things" then what is it? Good luck to you as well... I agree with you that NIH can be too conservative. But that’s the system we work in. My goal is to help people work in it optimally. While I’d love to change the system, change is slow.
I do think the straw is innovative. If innovation isn’t “inventing new things” then what is it?
Good luck to you as well…

]]> http://morganonscience.com/grantwriting/what-counts-as-innovation-in-the-new-nih-grant-format/comment-page-1/#comment-1792 NIH is the future of science Tue, 23 Nov 2010 19:13:25 +0000 http://morganonscience.com/?p=247#comment-1792 The straw example is not innovative. Its just an invention. It is not something that will lead to a new avenue of research. Once its invented. End of story. The NIH is still risk adverse. They say they want innovation. But its misleading. They seem to only fund projects with low risk. I would never submit an truly innovative proposal to the NIH. The pink sheet will say. Simply "it may not work" Or some other equally useless comment. Most reviewers are cowards and seem to enjoy shooting down innovative ideas for several reasons that don't have to do with the science. Don't give them what you read the announcement. Look at pedestrian stuff that is actually funded and give them more of the same BS. Tell the same stories and get funded. If you try to tell a different story the reviewers will not get on board. No matter how novel and cool or true it is. The reviewers know what they know (not much) and don't want to hear anything different. Good Luck! The straw example is not innovative. Its just an invention. It is not something that will lead to a new avenue of research. Once its invented. End of story. The NIH is still risk adverse. They say they want innovation. But its misleading. They seem to only fund projects with low risk. I would never submit an truly innovative proposal to the NIH. The pink sheet will say. Simply “it may not work” Or some other equally useless comment. Most reviewers are cowards and seem to enjoy shooting down innovative ideas for several reasons that don’t have to do with the science. Don’t give them what you read the announcement. Look at pedestrian stuff that is actually funded and give them more of the same BS. Tell the same stories and get funded. If you try to tell a different story the reviewers will not get on board. No matter how novel and cool or true it is. The reviewers know what they know (not much) and don’t want to hear anything different.
Good Luck!

]]> http://morganonscience.com/grantwriting/what-counts-as-innovation-in-the-new-nih-grant-format/comment-page-1/#comment-78 Sukumar Wed, 23 Dec 2009 10:47:15 +0000 http://morganonscience.com/?p=247#comment-78 If there's a sub-section entitled “innovation” (sandwiched between Significance and Approach), applicants are going to spin something to fill in there; everyone knows the game and it will be considered unacceptable to leave it blank. That doesn't make it innovative. If NIH is looking for ideas that nobody else around the world is coming up with (or something similar) around the same time, then most Nobel prize winning work won't qualify either -- not relativity, not natural selection, not quantum mechanics, not DNA structure! All of these truly innovative ideas (in my book) have occurred to multiple people with slight variations around the same time. If there’s a sub-section entitled “innovation” (sandwiched between Significance and Approach), applicants are going to spin something to fill in there; everyone knows the game and it will be considered unacceptable to leave it blank. That doesn’t make it innovative. If NIH is looking for ideas that nobody else around the world is coming up with (or something similar) around the same time, then most Nobel prize winning work won’t qualify either — not relativity, not natural selection, not quantum mechanics, not DNA structure! All of these truly innovative ideas (in my book) have occurred to multiple people with slight variations around the same time.

]]>