EUREKAed

Between all the Ks and EUREKAs on my plate, my cup floweth over with proposals that are such fun to read but put forth very ambitious plans indeed. And by folks who cannot seem to displace the traditional R-mechanism narrative depth & structure with a format, style, and level of detail more appropriate to their chosen award type.

From the NIGMS EUREKA FAQ: “Forget everything that you’ve ever learned about what research plans should look like. The EUREKA instructions prompt you to answer specific questions. Do it.”

Need I say more to all you EUREKAites? No, I think not. Just do it.

6 Comments »

  1. RGP said

    Quick question — I have a few collaborators who will provide animal models to me for my idea. For EUREKA, is it allowed to include letters of collaboration? It’s not clear to me if letter of collaboration belong in the Appendix (which isn’t allowed in the EUREKA application) or if I should just state that these models will be provided by Dr. Awesome from Friendly University.

    Thanks — back to writing furiously…..

    Yep. Already had this query from one of my PIs. Succinct answer from Dr. Helen Sunshine herself: “Yes. Letters may be submitted in field 16. – Helen”

    To clarify: letters of collaboration, such as providing the animal model you note, can be uploaded in field 16 of the electronic research plan form.

    Good luck – writedit

  2. PhysioProf said

    Letters of support/collaboration are not part of the appendix. Section 16 of the Research Plan form is entitled “Letters of Support”.

    I wonder how many EUREKA applications will be submitted? One of the program contacts for the FOA told me that many investigators who have sought advice have been discouraged from applying because it is clear that the proposed research is not going to be viewed as EUREKAish.

  3. PhysioProf said

    Just finished my EUREKA app. How many are being submitted from your institution?

    Haven’t a clue since I’m no where near or involved with the sponsored programs type office (which might not have accepted your EUREKA today). In past years, they probably wouldn’t have known either, but Baby It’s Cold Outside is finally starting to electronically track grant application submissions thanks to the wonders of InfoEd. However, they still can only report total research dollars in terms of expenditures (based on the annual audit) rather than awards since they don’t know how much comes in each year. Anyway, I only know of 3 EUREKAs (the proposal review services in my office are incredibly underutilized), but I’d guess at least a couple dozen went in. Big NIGMS constituency here. – writedit

  4. PhysioProf said

    “Haven’t a clue since I’m no where near or involved with the sponsored programs type office (which might not have accepted your EUREKA today).”

    Not accepted? Ours is very good about taking last-minute submissions. Instead of refusing to submit, they just cut down on how much detail they review before submitting. In the worst-case, they just check the budget and certifications and send it in.

    “might not” … I don’t interact with these folks at all, so I’m going by their advertised policy. But the bigger issue would have been getting it submitted electronically without errors before the receipt closing time. Definitely no guarantee there. And here, many departments require internal scientific review of all applications going out, some as much as 30 days prior. In the latter category, for standard submission cycle applications, if the internal review says the proposal isn’t ready (& can’t be made ready in the next 2 weeks), the PI must wait for the next submission date. So, most PIs are more concerned with their dept than the central sponsored programs office. – writedit

    “at least a couple dozen went in”

    Wow!

  5. PhysioProf said

    “And here, many departments require internal scientific review of all applications going out, some as much as 30 days prior.”

    This is a very good thing. We do not have any mandatory system for this. Each investigator is essentially on her own, and only gets scientific input if she seeks it.

  6. writedit said

    EUREKA awardees announced

    September 2008

    National Institute of General Medical Sciences

    John Chaput, Arizona State University, Tempe
    “Discovering a Hidden Proteome in the Human Genome”

    Daniel T. Chiu, University of Washington
    “Super-Resolution Imaging with Difference Deconvolution Microscopy”

    Tanja Dominko, Worcester Polytechnic Institute
    “De-Differentiating Adult Human Fibroblasts into Stem-Like Cells Using Defined Conditions”

    Iswar K. Hariharan, University of California, Berkeley
    “Identifying Novel Strategies to Promote Tissue Regeneration”

    James M. Hogle, Harvard University Medical School
    “Correlative Cyro-Miscroscopy: A New Approach for Characterizing the Structure and Function of Intracellular Macromolecular Machines in Situ”

    Laurence H. Hurley, University of Arizona, Tucson
    “Establishing a Molecular System for Drug Targeting of Transcriptional Control”

    Masayori Inouye, University of Medicine & Dentistry of New Jersey/Robert Wood Johnson Medical School
    “The Method for Determination of Membrane Protein Structures Without Purification”

    Michelle Krogsgaard, New York University School of Medicine
    “Visualizing Ligand-Induced Signal Propagation in the TCR-Signaling Complex”

    Jeanne B. Lawrence, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester
    “Is Chromosome Therapy Possible for Down Syndrome and Other Karyotypic Imbalances?”

    Joseph A. Loo, University of California, Los Angeles
    “Impact of Non-Canonical Decoding on the Proteome”

    Lee Makowski, University of Chicago
    “MADMAX: Precise Measurement of Conformational Changes in Proteins”

    Scott R. Manalis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
    “High-Throughput Monitoring of Mass, Density, and Fluorescence of Single Cells”

    William E. Moerner, Stanford University
    “Three-Dimensional Super-Resolution Imaging in Living Cells Using Single-Molecule Active Control”

    John W. Sedat, University of California, San Francisco
    “Enabling High-Resolution Imaging Deep in Live Tissue with Adaptive Optics”

    David F. Smith, Emory University
    “Shotgun Glycomics: Linking Glycan Structure and Function”

    Charles E. Stebbins, Rockefeller University
    “Exploiting a Bacterial Nano-Syringe for Protein Therapeutics”

    Michael H. Stowell, University of Colorado at Boulder
    “Self Assembled Lipid Icosohedra for High-Throughput Membrane Protein Structure Determination”

    Brian D. Strahl, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
    “A High-Throughput Approach Towards Deciphering the Histone Code”

    Russell N. Van Gelder, University of Washington Medical Center, Seattle
    “Mechanisms of Light-Mediated Protein Degradation”

    Alexander J. Varshavsky, California Institute of Technology
    “Split Proteins as Boolean Circuits and Drugs of a New Kind”

    National Institute of Neurological Diseases and Stroke

    Karen Ashe, University of Minnesota, Twin Cities
    “In Search of the Molecular Basis of Memory Loss in Tauopathy”

    Akira Chiba, University of Miami, Coral Gables
    “Mechanical Force and Neural Regeneration”

    Janis J. Daly, Case Western Reserve University
    “Non-Invasive Brain-Signal Training to Induce Motor Control Recovery After Stroke”

    Beverly Davidson, University of Iowa
    “RNA Aptamers for Brain Delivery”

    David Sretavan, University of California, San Francisco
    “Microscale Axon Repair as a Novel Paradigm for Nerve Injuries”

    National Institute of Mental Health

    Paul Brehm, Oregon Health & Science University
    “A Genetic Indicator Provides Long Term Mapping of Neuronal and Calcium Activity”

    David Kleinfeld, University of California, San Diego
    “Neuronal Signaling, Network Topology, and Blood Flow Dynamics in Cortex”

    Todd Lencz, Feinstein Institute for Medical Research
    “Identifying Molecular Subtypes of Schizophrenia: A Novel Genomic Approach”

    Rick C.S. Lin, University of Mississippi Medical Center
    “Serotonin, Corpus Callosum, and Autism”

    Joshua Ahab Maurer, Washington University in St. Louis
    “Unraveling Development: New Materials for Understanding Neuronal Wiring”

    Andras Jagy and Hongkui Zeng, Allen Institute for Brain Science
    “Generation and Characterization of Novel and Highly Specific Neuronal Subtype TRA”

    Bernardo L. Sabatini, Harvard University Medical School
    “Regulation of Neuron and Synapse Function by Neuropeptides”

    Yi Eve Sun, University of California, Los Angeles
    “A Novel Approach to Identify Neuronal mRNA Targets for Individual microRNAs”

    Michael J. Tarr, Brown University
    “Using Functional Physiology to Uncover the Fundamental Principles of Visual Cortex”

    National Institute on Drug Abuse

    Jeff W. Bulte, Johns Hopkins University
    “Developing MPI for Non-Invasive and Quantitative Imaging of Stem Cells”

    Benjamin F. Cravatt, Scripps Research Institute
    “Toward a Potent and Selective Inhibitor for Every Mammalian Serine Hydrolase”

    Rodolfo E. Diaz, Arizona State University, Tempe
    “Feasibility Demonstration of an Artificial Electrocyte for Neuronal Observation & Stimulation”

    Emad N. Eskandar, Massachusetts General Hospital
    “Striatal Deep Brain Stimulation for Learning Enhancement”

RSS feed for comments on this post · TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: